Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ANANT KAMUR TRIPATI v. WILLIAMS

March 21, 1990

ANANT KAMUR TRIPATI, Plaintiff,
v.
J. D. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants


Louis F. Oberdorfer, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: OBERDORFER

LOUIS F. OBERDORFER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Plaintiff, a former federal prisoner, has brought this pro se action as a qui tam litigant asserting the interests of the United States under the False Claims Act. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-31. Liberally construed, plaintiff's complaint alleges that current or former wardens from five federal correctional institutions conspired to defraud the Government by submitting fraudulent claims for payment (Counts 1, 3, and 4) and by falsifying records (Count 2). In support of his claim, plaintiff has submitted a computer printout, which, he alleges, contains a schedule of fraudulent claims for which payments were made. See Exhibits A-C. On December 15, 1989, the government filed a "Notice of the United States Not to Intervene." The government also filed a "Suggestion for Dismissal" and Memorandum in support thereof, to which plaintiff has responded. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of Rules 8(a) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 Although plaintiff's statement of claim is certainly "short and plain," it does not show how plaintiff is entitled to relief. Specifically, it does not allege with any particularity the actions that constitute fraud. Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that "in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity." This rule has been interpreted to require that the pleader "'state the time, place and content of the false misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented and what was obtained or given up as a consequence of the fraud.'" United States ex rel. Joseph v. Cannon, 206 U.S. App. D.C. 405, 642 F.2d 1373, 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting 2A J. Moore, Federal Practice para. 9.03 at 9-20 to 9-24 (2d ed. 1980)). Rule 9(a) serves "to discourage the initiation of suits brought solely for their nuisance value," to "safeguard[] potential defendants from frivolous accusations of moral turpitude," and to "guarantee all defendants sufficient information to allow for preparation of a response." Id. (citing 5, C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice § 1297 (1969)).

 Plaintiff's complaint contains the barest of allegations. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendant Southerland authorized purchases of services and materials that were used for his personal benefit. See Complaint at paras. 14, 24. The complaint, however, does not state a single fact to support this allegation. Plaintiff asserts that the false claims are set forth in exhibit A, attached to the complaint. Exhibit A is a computer printout listing 1,247 purchases apparently made by a federal prison between October 3, 1988 and July 7, 1989. For each purchase, the printout lists, inter alia, the item purchased, the cost, the person who requested the item, and a date. This information, however, provides no indication that the items -- which range from spark plugs and electrical tape to razor blades and shower curtain rods -- were purchased for Southerland's personal use. The complaint contains similar conclusory allegations about the other defendants.

 Without more, plaintiff's complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements of Rules 8(a) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, an accompanying Order will dismiss plaintiff's cause of action.

 ORDER - March 21, 1990, Filed

 For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is this 21st day of March, 1990, hereby

 ORDERED: that plaintiff's cause of action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Rules 8(a) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

19900321

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.