FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT April 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10768

_______________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 1 8 2 4 - C V- OR L - J GG D O U G L A S B . S T A L L E Y , o n b e h a lf o f th e U n ite d S ta te s o f

A m e r ic a , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s O R L A N D O R E G I O N A L H E A L T H C A R E S Y S T E M , I N C ., aF lo r id aC o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l18, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n th is ap p e a l, w e c o n s id e rw h e th e rap la in tif f w h o a lle g e s n o in

ju ry to hi m se l f has st andi ng t o b ri ng a qui t am ac t i on for dam ages un der the M edi ca reErin B rockovich has filed numerous simil ar c ases in fe deral district courts in California. 1 2 S e c onda ry P a y e rA c t , 42 U . S . C . § 1395y ( b) ( 3) ( A ) ( “ M S P ” ) . P l a i nt i f f - appe l l a nt D o u g la s B . S ta lle y ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd is m is s in g w ith p r e ju d ic e h is pu rport ed qu i t am ac t i on agai nstO rl ando R egi on al H ea l thcar e S ys t em . T he di stri ct c our the l d tha tS t a l l e y l a c ke d s t a ndi ng t o br i ng thi s a c t i on be c a us e he di d nota l l e ge i n h i s c o mp l a i n tth a th e s u f f e r e d a n y i n

j u ry c a u s e d b y O RH S a n d b e c a u s e th e M SP do es no tprov i de for aqu i t am act i o n . A ft er a rev i ew o f th e reco rd , th e p art i es’ br i e f s , a nd or a l a r gum e nt , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y di s m i s s e d the com pl ai nt . H ow ever , si nce S t al l eyl ac ks st andi ng , w hi ch l ef tthe di stri ctcourt w i tho utsubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , S t al l ey ’ s c om pl ai ntshou l d h ave been di sm i ss ed w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e . T h e r e f

o r e , w e A F F I R M in p a r t a n d R E M A N D in p a r t w ith i n stru ct i o n s. I . B AC KG RO UN D S ta lle y h a s f

ile d d o z e n s o f

c a s e s a lm o s t id e n tic a l to th is o n e a g a in s t h o s p ita ls an d o th er h eal th care p ro v i d ers i n fed eral d i stri ctco u rt s aro u n d th e co u n try. 1 S t a l l e y doe s nota l l e ge tha the i s aM e di c a r e be ne f i c i a ry ortha the s uf

f e r e d a ny in ju r ie s c a u s e d b y O R H S , th e h o s p ita l s y s te m S ta lle y s u e d in th is p a r tic u la rc a s e . I n s te a d , S ta lle y a lle g e s in h is c o m p la in t th a t

[ o ]n n u m e r o u s o c c a s io n s . . . [ O R H S ] c a u s e d h a rm to3 M ed icar e r ec ip ien ts w h o w er e p atien ts in [O R H S ]’ s hos pi t a l s , the r e by tr i gge r i ng l e ga l obl i ga t i on[ s ] on the partof [O R H S ] . . . t o p ayfor a ny consequent i al m edi ca l s e rv i c e , tr e a tme n t , o rme d i c a t i o n . N e v e r th e l e s s , [ O RH S] p r o v id e d m e d ic a l s e rv ic e s , tr e a tm e n t a n d m e d ic a tio n to su ch M ed icar e r ec ip ien ts w h o w er e h ar m ed b y [ O R H S ]’ s ow n c onduc t , a nd the r e a f t e rr e c e i ve d r e i m bur s e m e nt fr om M edi ca re for tre at i ng tho se i nj ured M edi ca re reci p i en t s. R 1- 2 a t2- 3. T he c om pl a i ntdoe s noti de nt i f y as i ngl e pe r s on w ho w a s i nj ur e d by O R H S , b u t S ta lle y c o n te n d s th a t O R H S k n e w th a t it c a u s e d in ju r ie s to un spec i fi ed O R H S pat i ent s throu gh “ pat i entcom pl ai nt s, st af f c om pl ai nt s, i nt ernal i nc i de ntr e por t s a nd i nve s t i ga t i ons , i nt e rna l pe e rr e vi e w , r i s k m a na ge m e nt p ro g ra m s a n d fe d er ally m an d ated h o sp it al su rv ey s.” I d . at 3 . In su m , S tall ey ’s cl ai m i s thatO R H S kn ow i ng l y c ause d h arm t o M edi ca re benefi ci ar i es , prov i ded tr e a tm e n t to s u c h p e r s o n s f o rth e in ju r ie s c a u s e d b y O R H S , a n d f a ile d to re i m bu rs e M edi ca re for the costof thattre atm ent . B as ed up on these al l eged i nj uri es , w hi ch pu t at i vel y l ed t o tre atm entfor w hi ch O R H S supp osedl y bi l l ed M ed i care, S t al l ey arg u es th ath e i s “ en t i t l ed t o reco v er d o u b l e d am ag es, ca l cul at ed as tw i ce the am ou ntof [O R H S ] ’ s unp ai d o bl i gat i on s t o M edi ca re u n d e rth e M S P s ta tu te .” I d . a t 5 . O R H S m o v e d to d is m is s th e c o m p la in t p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le s o f C iv il P r oc e dur e 12( b) ( 1) a nd 12( b) ( 6) , a r gui ng tha tS t a l l e y l a c ks s t a ndi ng t o br i ng aIn dictum in an earlier ca se involving a n interpretation of section 1395y(b)( 3)(A) , we 2 re je c te d th en o ti o nth at t

h eM SP a uth o riz e d individ u alstoa c t “ a s p riv ateatto r n ey [s ] g en eral[ ] to liti g ate the state tort liability of a de fenda

nt towards thousands of Me dicare bene ficiaries . . . without complying with class action re quirements.” G lover v. Ligg ett Group, Inc., 459 F .3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Today, we rejec t the contention that the MSP is a qui tam statute. 4 c la im u n d e rth e M S P . S ta lle y r e s p o n d e d th a t h e h a s s ta n d in g b e c a u s e th e M S P is a qui t am st atut e. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatS t al l eyfi l ed “ a nea rl y i dent i ca l a c t i on i n the E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof A rka ns a s , ” w hi c h ha d a l r e a dy be e n di s m i s s e d f or l a c k of A r t i c l e I I I s t a ndi ng a nd be c a us e tha tc our tf ound tha tthe M S P i s notaqui t am st atut e. R 1-18 at4. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that“ the qu es t i on pres ent ed i n [the A rkansa s c as e] i s vi rtual l y i nd i st i ng ui shabl e” fr om the qu es t i on pres ent ed i n thi s c as e, det erm i ned thatS t al l eyl ac ks st andi ng “ because the M S P st atut e does no tprov i de for aqu i t am ac t i on and S t al l eydo es no tal l ege thathe has s uffe re d a ny i nj ury tha tw oul d s uppor tA r t i c l e I I I s t a ndi ng, ” a nd di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt w ith p r e ju d ic e . I d . T h is ap p e a l f o llo w e d . I I . DI S CUS S I ON S t a l l e y c ont e nds tha the ha s s t a ndi ng t o br i ng hi s c l a i m s on be ha l f of the U ni t ed S t at es because the M S P i s aqu i t am st atut e. T o d at e, tw o o f our si st er circ u itco u rts o f a p p ea ls h av e s q u ar ely a d d re ss ed an d w h o ll y r ejec ted S tall ey ’s co n t en t i o n , an d w e ag ree w i th th ei r reaso n i n g an d h o l d i n g s. S t al l ey v . M eth o d i st 2 H e a l thc a r e , ___ F . 3d a t___, 2008 W L 515875 ( 6th C i r . 2008) ; S t a l l e y v.5

C a thol i c H e a l th I ni t i a t i ve s , 509 F . 3d 517 ( 8th C i r . 2007) . A r t i c l e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on l i m i t s the j ur i s di c t i on of the f e de r a l c our t s t o the c ons i de r a t i on of

“ C ases” an d “ C o n tro v ersi es. ” U . S . C o n st A r t. I I I § 2 . T h e “tr ia d o f in ju ry in fact , cau sat i o n , an d red ressab i l i ty co n st i tu t es th e co re o f A rt i cl e III’s ca se -or- controvers y r equi re m ent , and the party i nv ok i ng fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on bear s th e b u r d e n o f

e s tab lis h in g its e x is te n c e .” P a rk e rv . S c r ap M e ta l P r o c e s s o r s , I n c ., 3 8 6 F .3 d 9 9 3 , 1 0 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ F ]ir s t a n d f o r e m o s t, th e r e m u s t b e a lle g e d . . . a n in ju ry in f a c t –ah a rm s u f

f e r e d b y th e p la in tif

f th a t is c o n c r e t e a n d a c tu a l o ri m m i n e n t , n o tc o n j e c tu r a l o rh y p o th e t i c a l . ” I d . “ An in te r e s t u n r e la te d to in

ju ry in f a c t is in s u f

f ic ie n t to g iv e ap la in tif

f s ta n d in g .” V t. A ge nc y of

N a tur a l R e s . v. U ni t e d S t a t e s e x r e l . S t e ve ns , 529 U . S . 765, 772, 120 S . C t. 1 8 5 8 , 1 8 6 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h u s , ap la in tif f w ith o u t a n in

ju ry in f a c t la c k s A r tic le II I s t andi ng , and the fe dera l court s do n othave j uri sdi ct i on ov erhi s or her c o m p la in t.

“ B e c a us e s t a ndi ng i s j ur i s di c t i ona l , adi s m i s s a l f orl a c k of

s t a ndi ng ha s the s a me e f f e c ta s ad i s mi s s a l f

o rl a c k o f

s u b j e c tma tt e rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rFe d . R. C i v. P . 12( b) ( 1) . ” C one C orp. v. F l a . D e p’ tof T r a ns p. , 921 F . 2d 1190, 1203 n. 42 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . A d is m is s a l f o rla c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n is n o t a j udgm e nton the m e r i t s a nd i s e nt e r e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e . C r otw e l l v. H oc km a n-6

L ew is L td ., 7 3 4 F .2 d 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). In re v iew in g th e d istrict co u rt’s d e c is io n to g r a n t am o tio n to d is m is s f o rla c k o f

s ta n d in g p u r s u a n t to R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , w e r e v ie w th e le g a l c o n c lu s io n s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n o v o . M c E l m urr a y v. C ons ol . G ov’ tof A ugus t a - R i c hm ond C ounty , 501 F . 3d 1244, 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A d e f e n d a n t c a n m o v e to d is m is s ac o m p la in t u n d e rR u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) f

o rla c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n b y e ith e rf a c ia l o rf a c tu a l a tta c k . I d. a t1251. “ A f

a c i a l a tt a c k on the c om pl a i ntr e qui r e s the c our tm e r e l y t o l ook and see i f the pl ai nt i ff

has s uffi ci ent l y a l l eged a basi s of s ubj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on , and the al l egat i on s i n h i s c om pl ai ntar e t aken as true f or the pu rposes o f th e m o tio n .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n , c ita tio n , a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . B y c o n tr a s t, a fa ctual att ac k o n a com pl ai ntchal l enges the exi st ence of subj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on us i ng m a t e r i a l e xtr i ns i c f r om the pl e a di ngs , s uc h a s a f f i da vi t s or te s tim o n y . I d . O u rr e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d e s tab lis h e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d o n ly the com pl ai ntand the att ac hed exh i bi t s a nd tre at ed O R H S ’ s m ot i on as a f ac i al att ac k o n the com pl ai nt . W hen d ef endi ng agai nsta f

ac i al att ac k, the pl ai nt i ff has

“ s a f e gua r ds s i m i l a rt o thos e r e t a i ne d w he n aR ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s f or f a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im is r a is e d ,” a n d “th e c o u r t m u s t c o n s id e rth e a lle g a tio n s in the pl ai nt i ff’ s c om pl ai ntas true. ” I d. (quo t at i on s om i tt ed). T he courti s r equi re d7

“ m er el y t o l oo k and se e i f the pl ai nt i ff has s uffi ci ent l y a l l eged a basi s of s ubj ec t m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on, a nd the a l l e ga t i ons i n hi s c om pl a i nta r e t a ke n a s true f orthe p u rp o s e s o f

th e m o tio n .” L a w r e n c e v . D u n b a r , 9 1 9 F .2 d 1 5 2 5 , 1 5 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( q u o ta tio n a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . I n thi s c a s e , S t a l l e y doe s nota l l e ge tha the i s aM e di c a r e r e c i pi e nt , tha the has e ver r ec ei ved m edi ca l tre atm entatO R H S , or thathe has a ctual l y bee n i nj ured by O R H S . T here fore , S t al l eyca nn otas se rtthathe has a ny i nj ury i n fac tthatw as c a u s e d b y O R H S , a n d it is c le a rth a t h e la c k s tr a d itio n a l A r tic le I I I s ta n d in g to bri ng thi s a ct i on . O rdi nari l y, thatw ou l d b e the end o f the ca se . H ow ever , si nce S t al l eyar gu es thatthe M S P i s aqu i t am st atut e, w e m usteval uat e w hether S t al l ey ca n p ursue aqu i t am a c tio n u n d e rth e M S P . S t al l eyno m i nal l y s ued O R H S on behal f of the U ni t ed S t at es , as se rt i ng that “th e g o v e rn m e n t s u f

f e r e d a n in

ju ry in th e f

o rm o f M e d ic a r e p a y m e n ts th a t s h o u ld ha ve be e n r e i m bur s e d butw e r e not , ” a nd tha tthe gove rnm e nt , notS t a l l e y , i s the tru e p a r ty i n i n t e r e s ti n th i s c a s e . Ap p e l l a n t ’ s B r . a t2 1 . Af t e rd e n o v o r e v i e w, w e c on cl ud e thatthe M S P i s nota qui t am st atut e. “ ‘ Q ui t am ’ i s a n abbr e vi a t i on f orqui t a m pr o dom i no r e ge qua m pr o s e i ps o, w hi c h m e a ns ‘ he w ho a s m uc h f or the ki ng a s f

orhi m s e l f

. ’ ” U ni t e d S e ni or s A s s ’ n, I nc . v. P hi l i p M orr i s U S A , 500 F . 3d 19, 24 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n aqui t a m a c t i on,In addition to the FalseClaims Act, at issue in that case , the Court enumerated 25 3 U.S.C. § 81 (which provides a “ca use of action and share of recovery ag ainst a per son contractingwith Indians in an unlawf ul manner” ); 25 U.S.C. § 201 (which provides “ causeof action and sha

re of rec overy ag ainst a per son violating Indian protec tion laws”); and 35 U .S.C. § 292(b) (which provide s a “c ause of action and sha

re of rec overy ag ainst a per son falsely

marking patente d a

rtic le s” ). Vt . A g ency, 5 29 U. S. 7 68 n. 1, 12 0 S. Ct. 18 58 , 1 86 0 n .1 . A s th eF ir st Circuit remar

ked in United Seniors, it is “particula rly notable” that the MSP is not li sted among these statutes. United Seniors, 500 F .3d at 24 n.7. 8 apr i va t e i ndi vi dua l , know n a s the r e l a t or , s ue s a s “ apa r t i a l a s s i gne e of the U n ite d S ta te s .” V t. A g e n c y , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 7 7 4 n .4 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 1 8 6 3 n .4 ( e m pha s i s om i tt e d) . T he r e l a t orpur s ue s the gove rnm e nt ’ s c l a i m a ga i ns tthe defe nd ant , and ass ert s the i nj ury i n fac tsuff er ed by the go vernm ent , w hi ch c o n f e r s s ta n d in g o n th e r e la to rto b r in g th e a c tio n . I d . a t 7 7 4 . “T h e r e is p r e s e n tly no c om m on- l a w r i ghtt o br i ng aqui t a m a c t i on, w hi c h i s s tr i c t l y ac r e a tur e of st atut e. ” S t al l eyv. C atho l i c H ea l th Ini t i at i ves, 50 9 F . 3d at52 1 (qu ot i ng U ni t ed S e n io r s , 5 0 0 F .3 d a t 2 3 ) . In V erm on tA gency, the C ou rtre cogn i ze d thatfour qu i t am st atut es “r e m a in o n th e b o o k s .” V t. A g e n c y , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 7 6 8 n .1 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 1 8 6 0 n .1 . 3 O n e o f th o se st atu t es i s p erh ap s th e “ b estk n o w n q u i t am st atu t e t o d ay, ” th e F al se C la im s A c t ( “F C A ” ) 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 2 9 e t s e q . S ta lle y v . C a th o lic H e a lth I n itia tiv e s , 5 0 9 F .3 d a t 5 2 2 . T h e F C A p r o v id e s th a t [ a ] p e r s o n m a y b r in g ac iv il a c tio n . . . f

o rth e p e r s o n a n d f

o rth e U n ite d S ta te s G o v e rn m e n t. T h e a c tio n s h a ll be br oughti n the na m e of the G ove rnm e nt . ” 31 U . S . C . § 3730( b) ( 1) . T he9

gove rnm e ntha s s ubs t a nt i a l a uthor i ty ove rthe a c t i on be c a us e the F C A ve s t s the g o v e rn m e n t w ith s e v e r a l s ig n if ic a n t p r o c e d u r a l c o n tr o ls , in c lu d in g th e r ig h ts to d is m is s th e a c tio n w ith o u t th e c o n s e n t o f th e r e la to r , to r e v ie w th e c o m p la in t in c a m e r abe f

or e i ti s s e rve d, a nd the r i ghtt o ve t o orappr ove as e tt l e m e nt . S e e 31 U . S . C . § 3730( b) - ( c ) . T he F C A f ur the rpr ovi de s f

orm e thods t o appor t i on the pr oc e e ds of

the a c t i on be tw e e n the r e l a t ora nd the gove rnm e nt , de pe ndi ng on the [ n a tu r e ] o f

th e in d iv id u a l a c tio n . 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 0 ( d ) . A s m a ny c our t s ha ve r e c ogni z e d, the M S P di f f e r s m a t e r i a l l y f

r om the F C A . F o re x a m p le , s e c tio n 1 3 9 5 y ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) o f th e M S P p r o v id e s f

o ra“p r iv a te c a u s e o f a c tio n f o rd a m a g e s . . . in th e c a s e o f ap r im a ry p la n w h ic h f a ils to pr ovi de f orpr i m a ry pa y m e nt( orappr opr i a t e r e i m bur s e m e nt ) i n a c c or da nc e w i th” th e M S P . 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 3 9 5 y(b )(3 )(A ). T h e M S P d o es n o td escri b e a “ j o i n t l yh e ld c a u s e o f

a c tio n b y th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d th e p r iv a te p la in tif f , o r[ ] th e p r iv a te pl a i nt i f f’ s r i ghtt o s ue s ol e l y i n be ha l f of the gove rnm e nt . ” U ni t e d S e ni or s , 500 F . 3d at24 . T he M S P prov i des t o the go vernm entno ne of the procedural s a f e g u a r d s to m a n a g e o rd ir e c t a n a c tio n w h ic h a r e g r a n te d to it u n d e rth e F C A . T he pri vat e pl ai nt i ff

i n an act i on un der the M S P i s e nt i t l ed t o the ent i re re covery i f he or s he i s s ucce ss ful , un l i ke un der the F C A , w hi ch appo rt i on s the re covery b etw een th e rel at o r an d th e g o v ern m en t . 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 3 9 5 y(b )(3 )(A ). F i n al l y,E.g ., Stalley v. Methodist Healthca

re, ___ F .3d ___, 2008 WL515875 (6th Cir. 2008); 4 Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 509 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2007); United Seniors, 500 F .3d 19 (1st Cir. 2007); Stalley

v. Reg ency

Hosp. Co., No. 06-5233, 2007 WL1702574 (W.D. Ark. June 11, 2007); Brockovich v. Cmty . Med. Ctrs., Inc., No. 06- 1609, 2007 WL738691 (E.D. Cal. Mar . 7, 2007); Stalley

v. Erlang er H ealth Sys., No. 1:06-194, 2007 WL672301 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2007); Stalley

v. Catholic Health East, No. 06-2491, 2007 WL320271 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2007); Stalley v. Sumner Reg ' l Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:06-0074, 2007 WL173686 (M.D. Tenn. J an. 18, 2007). 10 the f a c ttha tC ongr e s s “ e xpl i c i t l y c r e a t e d the c urr e ntqui t a m pr ovi s i ons of the F C A th e s a m e m o n th it c r e a te d th e p r iv a te r ig h t o f a c tio n in th e M S P c e r ta in ly bel i es S t al l ey ’ s c on t ent i on ” thatC on gres s i nt ended the M S P t o b e aqu i t am s t a tut e . S t a l l e y v. M e thodi s tH e a l thc a r e , ___ F . 3d a t___, 2008 W L 515875 a t*6 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S e n io r s , 5 0 0 F .3 d a t 2 4 . B a s e d upon the s e di s t i nc t i ons , e ve ry c our ttha tha s a ddr e s s e d the que s t i on of w he the rthe M S P i s aqui t a m s t a tut e ha s a ns w e r e d i n the ne ga t i ve . A s the 4 E i gh th C i rc ui tdet erm i ned, the M S P cr ea t es st atut ory s chem e und erw hi ch in d iv id u a ls c a n s u e th e irc a r e p r o v id e r s a n d r e c o v e rd o u b le d a m a g e s “to v in d ic a te th ei r p ri v at e ri g h t s w h en th ei r p ri m ary p ayers fail t o l i v e u p t o th ei r o b l i g at i o n s, even i f M edi ca re has m ade acond i t i on al paym entof the benefi ci ar i es ’ expenses . ” S ta lle y v . C a th o lic H e a lth I n itia tiv e s , 5 0 9 F .3 d a t 5 2 7 . W e a g r e e w ith th e c o u r ts tha tha ve a l r e a dy rul e d on thi s que s t i on, a nd w e hol d tha tS t a l l e y ha s no s t a ndi ng to m a in ta in a n a c tio n u n d e rth e M S P b e c a u s e it is n o t aq u i ta m s ta tu te . S in c e w e c o n c lu d e th a t S ta lle y la c k s s ta n d in g b e c a u s e h e h a s n o in ju ry in11

fa ctand b ec ause the M S P i s nota qui t am st atut e, the di stri ctcourtl ac ked subj ec t m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on ove rthe c om pl a i nt , a nd i tha d no pow e rt o r e nde raj udgm e nt on the m er i t s. S ee C rotw el l , 73 4 F . 2d at76 9. C on se qu ent l y, the di stri ctcourt sh o u l d h av e d i sm i ssed th e co m p l ai n tw i th o u tp rej u d i ce, an d w e rem an d i n p artso thatthe di stri ctcourtca n ree nt eri t s di sm i ss al order w i tho utprej ud i ce . I I I . CONCL US I ON S ta lle y ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd is m is s in g w ith p r e ju d ic e h is pu rport ed qu i t am ac t i on agai nstO R H S . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed S t a l l e y ’ s c om pl a i ntbe c a us e S t a l l e y l a c ks s t a ndi ng. H e ha s nots uf f e r e d a ny i nj ury i n fac tcaused by O R H S , and the M S P do es no tprov i de for aqu i t am a c t i on. H ow e ve r , s i nc e the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notha ve s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on i n thi s c as e, S t al l ey ’ s c om pl ai ntshou l d h ave been di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce . T he r e f or e , w e r e m a nd w i th i ns truc t i ons tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tr e e nt e ri t s j udgm e nt a c c o r d in g ly . AF F I RME D I N P AR T AN D R E MAND E D I N P AR T .