Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/ ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

These consolidated cases came before the court on February

17, 2006, for hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

documents. Plaintiff Gene L. Rogers, M.D., proceeding pro se,

appeared on his own behalf. Clair I. Van Dam appeared on behalf of

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 247 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Deputy Attorney General Anthony M. Bova filed written 1

opposition to the motion on behalf of the State of California but did

not make an appearance at the hearing.

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. 2

Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. CejaPrado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

defendant County of Sacramento. Kendall Newman appeared on behalf of

the United States. Having considered all written materials submitted 1

in connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for

the reasons set forth on the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel that came on for hearing

(Doc. no. 189) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s attempted motion to enforce compliance with

a subpoena (Doc. no. 215) is denied as untimely, that motion not

having been properly filed and noticed for hearing in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules;

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment which came on

for hearing on January 13, 2006, is hereby taken under submission for

decision; 

4. The matter having been brought to the attention of the

court by the United States (see United States of America’s Stmnt. of

Interest in Opp’n to Mot. to Compel (Doc. no. 220), at 2 n.1), and in

light of the court’s continuing obligation to assess its subject

matter jurisdiction, within twenty (20) days of the date of this 2

order plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this matter should

not be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s status as a pro

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 247 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

se relator in this qui tam action. See United States v. Onan, 190

F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951) cert. denied, 342 U.S. 869 (1951)(“we do

not think that Congress could have intended to authorize a layman to

carry on such suit as attorney for the United States”); United States

ex rel. Fisher v. Network Software Assocs., 377 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.

D.C. 2005)(holding that plaintiff may not maintain suit as a qui tam

relator without the assistance of counsel); United States ex rel.

Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D. D.C.

2003) (granting motion to dismiss False Claims Act (FCA) and common

law claims because a relator in a qui tam FCA action cannot proceed

pro se and plaintiff lacked standing to pursue common law claims for

injuries allegedly sustained by the United States); United States ex

rel. Stronstorff v. Blake Med. Ctr., 2003 WL 21004734, at *1, Case

No. 8:01-CV-844-T23MSS (M.D. Fla. 2003)(“a pro se litigant cannot

represent the United States in a qui tam action”); United States ex

rel. Schwartz v. TRW, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 2d 991 (C.D. Cal.

2000)(holding that non-lawyer proceeding pro se could not represent

the United States in qui tam action under FCA); United States ex. rel

Tyler v. California, 1999 WL 33456979, Case No. S-98-2130 GEB JFM

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 1999)(holding that a qui tam relator could not

proceed in propria persona); but see United States ex rel. Trice v.

Westinghouse Hanford Co., 2000 WL 34024248, at *11, Case No. 96-CS171-WFN (E.D. Wash. March 1, 2000)(“In light of the Ninth Circuit's

view that FCA claims are fraud claims assigned by the Government to

the private litigant when the Government declines to intervene, Trice

is allowed to proceed pro se.”);

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 247 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

5. A response by defendant County of Sacramento, the

United States and the State of California shall be filed within ten

(10) days thereafter;

6. In their briefs plaintiff and counsel shall indicate

whether oral argument on the order to show cause is requested;

7. All discovery is stayed pending resolution of the order

to show cause; and

8. All discovery having been stayed, all other pending

discovery motions (Doc. nos. 202, 207 & 229) are denied without

prejudice as moot and the hearing notice by plaintiff for March 3,

2006, with respect to those motions is vacated. 

DATED: February 21, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.prose\rogers1658.021706

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 247 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 4