Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Matthews v. Samuels

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 15, 2014

Alexander Otis Matthews, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr. et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a qui tarn suit, see Compl. Caption, and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. "A pro se plaintiff may not file a qui tarn action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq." Jones v. Jindal, 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. ¶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 83.11(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 Opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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