Stevens v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

D.C. Circuit

Stevens v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

377 F. App'x 16

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 2010

DocketNo. 09-5443

StatusPublished

This text of 377 F. App'x 16 (Stevens v. United States Department of Health & Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevens v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 377 F. App'x 16 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 84(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued December 8, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the appellant’s complaint as frivolous. The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint without the consent of the Attorney General, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), because pro se plaintiffs may not file a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act, and section 3730(b)(1) only applies to voluntary dismissals by qui tam plaintiffs. See United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 91-94 (2d Cir.2008).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 84(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued December 8, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the appellant’s complaint as frivolous. The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint without the consent of the Attorney General, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), because pro se plaintiffs may not file a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act, and section 3730(b)(1) only applies to voluntary dismissals by qui tam plaintiffs. See United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 91-94 (2d Cir.2008).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F. App'x 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-united-states-department-of-health-human-services-cadc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack