Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America ex rel. Saleem 

Hadi, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Pinal County Community College District 

Governing Board, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-13-00007-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 

 Pending before the Court are: (1) Relator’s Motion to Allow Electronic Filing by a 

Party Appearing without an Attorney (Doc. 9); (2) Relator’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 

(Doc. 11); (3) Relator’s Motion to Permanently Seal Relator’s IFP Application (Doc. 12); 

(4) Relator’s Motion to Stay Dismissal, Motion to Compel, and Motion to Interpret (Doc. 

18); (5) Relator’s Motion to Extend (Doc. 19); and (5) the Government’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 21). The Court now rules on the Motions. 

I. Background 

 On January 1, 2013, Relator Saleem Hadi filed a qui tam Complaint against 

Defendants (Doc. 1) alleging claims under the False Claims Act. On May 21, 2013, the 

Court ordered Relator to obtain an attorney if he wanted to pursue his claims under the 

False Claims Act. (Doc. 16). On May 22, 2013, the Government filed a notice stating 

that it would not intervene in this action. (Doc. 17). The Court gave Plaintiff no more 

than 45 days to obtain counsel. (Doc. 16). The Court’s Order was filed more than 100 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

27 

28 

days ago and Relator has still not obtained counsel in this case. 

II. Relator’s Sealed Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 11) 

 On April 3, 2013, Relator filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. There is no 

constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of 

Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, does have the 

discretion to allow litigants to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel in 

“exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). In order to 

determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court evaluates the petitioner’s 

A>likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his or 

her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Richard v. 

Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 

(9th Cir. 1983)); see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither factor is determinative, and 

the Court must consider both factors before reaching a decision on a request for 

appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Relator is unlikely to succeed 

on the merits of this case. Due to the nature of the action, Relator cannot proceed without 

counsel. However, Relator’s inability to bring this action pro se does not by itself justify 

appointment of counsel in this case. This case does not present “exceptional 

circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Relator’s Motion to 

Appoint Counsel is denied. 

III. Relator’s Motion to Permanently Seal IFP Application (Doc. 12) 

Relator moves to “permanently seal” his IFP application. It is not clear to the 

Court what Relator means when he requests that the Court “permanently seal” his 

application. However, Relator’s IFP application is currently under seal. As a result, 

Relator’s Motion to Permanently Seal his IFP Application is denied as moot. 

 IV. Relator’s Motion to Stay Dismissal, Motion to Compel, and Motion to Interpret (Doc. 18)

 On May 31, 2013, Relator requested that the Court stay dismissal until the 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

27 

28 

Government “files a notice of declination of intervention.” (Doc. 18 at 8). In that same 

motion, Relator requests that the Court compel the Government to openly file its 

intervention decision or openly petition for dismissal. On May 22, 2013, the Government 

publicly filed a notice stating that it would not intervene in this action and, on July 24, 

2013, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. Accordingly, Relator’s 

Motion to Stay and Motion to Compel are denied as moot. Relator alternatively requests 

that “the Government be ordered to make an intervention decision or motion for 

dismissal.” (Doc. 18). For the reasons stated above, Relator’s alternative request is 

denied as moot. 

V. Relator’s Motion to Extend (Doc. 19) 

 On June 13, 2013, Relator requested that the Court give the maximum extension it 

is willing to permit to allow Relator to obtain counsel. Relator has had over 100 days to 

obtain counsel and has not done so. Accordingly, to the extent Relator requests an 

additional extension, such request is denied. 

VI. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) 

 The Government moves to dismiss the complaint because pro se relators cannot 

represent the United States in qui tam actions after the United States has declined to take 

over the action. (Doc. 21). Indeed, “a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on 

behalf of the United States.” Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 

1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). In Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, Relator 

moves to quash the Government’s Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff is attempting to 

obtain counsel. Relator’s request that the Court quash the Government’s Motion to 

Dismiss is denied. 

 As discussed above, Relator has been given more than 100 days to obtain counsel 

and has failed to do so. Relator has been given a reasonable time and has been unable to 

obtain counsel. Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Relator’s Sealed Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 11) is 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

27 

28 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator’s Sealed Motion to Allow Electronic 

Filing by a Party Appearing without an Attorney (Doc. 9) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator’s Motion to Permanently Seal 

Relator’s IFP Application (Doc. 12) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator’s Motion to Stay Dismissal (Doc. 18) 

is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 18) is 

denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator’s Motion to Interpret (Doc. 18) is 

denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator’s Motion to Extend (Doc. 19) is 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal the 

following docket entries: Doc. 1, Doc. 3, Doc. 4, Doc. 5, Doc. 6, Doc. 7, Doc. 8, Doc. 9, 

Doc. 10, Doc. 11, Doc. 12, Doc. 16, Doc. 18, and Doc. 19. IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that, within 15 days of the date of this Order, the Government shall file a 

motion to unseal Docs. 13 and 14 or shall file a motion seeking to allow Docs. 13 and 14 

to remain under seal. If the Government files the latter motion, the Government shall 

detail the reasons why those docket entries should remain under seal. See Kamakana v. 

City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). If the Government does not a file 

either motion within 15 days of the date of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall unseal 

Docs. 13 and 14 without further notice. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) 

is granted. 

/// 

// 

/ 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

27 

28 

 This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter 

judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 9th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 Page 5 of 5