Matthews v. Samuels

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 15, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-1565
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA L D SEP 1 5 2014 ) C|e'rk, U'.§.`b'|'éf€l<`:t`§nd A1exander Otis Matthews, ) sankl’upl-'CV CO\-ll'f$ ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. !zl" ) Charles E. Samuels, Jr. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a qui lam suit, see Compl. Caption, and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. "A pro se plaintiff may not file a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq." Jones v. Jz`ndal, 409 Fed. Appx. 356 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Berlin, New Hampshire, acknowledges this barrier and requests that counsel be appointed "should the United States choose not to intervene." Compl. 1]2. But an appointment from the Court’s Civil Pro Bono Panel is made at the discretion of "the judge to whom the case is assigned." LCvR 83.1 l(b)(3). The dismissal of this case prior to assignment disqualifies plaintiff from consideration of a Panel appointment, and the factors for appointing counsel weigh heavily against an appointment of counsel in any event. See id. Hence, this action will be dismissed. A separate Order

accompanies this Memorandum Opini0n.

DATE: September ,2014