UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

DONALD G . JONES, P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 10-1052 (JD B) GOVERN OR BOBB Y JINDAL, et al., Defendan ts.
MEMORAN DUM OP INION This matter is befor e the Court on its initi al re view of pla intiff’s pro se c omplaint. Pursuant to the statute g overningin forma pa uperis proc eeding s, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is require d to dismi ss a complaint upon a de termination that it is "frivolous or malicious" or " fails to state a c laim on which re lief may be grante d." 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B ). Dona ld J ones has brought this qui tam action pursua nt to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3728 et seq., ag ainst thirteen states, the g overnor s and attorne y g ener als there of, and e ach suc h state' s Republican party , based on the ir alleg edly unlawful pa

rticipation in liti g ation challeng ing the validity of the health ca re r efor m leg islation enacte d earlier this year . See Compl. at 10-25 (c iting def endants' 1 acts with re spect to State of F lorida v. U.S. Dep' t of Hea lth and Human Servs., Case No. 3:10-cv00091 (S.D. Fla . filed Mar . 23, 2010)). While difficult to deciphe r, the e ssence of plaintiff' s complaint appea

rs to be that def

endants ha

ve fr audulently

used public funds to pay

for the he alth

Plaintiff's r efe renc es to the health care ref orm leg islation are pr esumably to the Patient 1 Protection & Affor dable Car e Ac t, P.L . 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010). The thirteen state defe ndants are those states that filed the f irst challeng e to that law: F lorida, South Carolina, Nebr aska, Te x as, Utah, L ouisiana, Alaba ma, Michig an, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washing ton, I daho, and South Dakota . See Compl., ECF Doc. N o. 1, at 14-17.car e re form litigation, have pursue d the litigation without authorization from their citizens, and

have pur sued that litigation with an unlawful discriminatory purpose. The complaint also alleg es that the def

endants have misused or de nied plaintiff ac cess to funds f rom the Trouble d Asset Relief Program (" TARP") a nd other fe dera l funds intended to stimulate the ec onomy , all in violation of the Fa lse Claims Act. He see ks $22 billi on in damag es and a broad injunction ag ainst further

violations of the Fa lse Claims Act. J ones' complaint must be dismis sed for two rea sons. First, the complaint fa ils to comply with Rule 8 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e 8. Tha t Rule require s that ever

y complaint include " a short and pla in statement of the c laim showing tha t the pleade r is entitled to relief" and that "e ach a

verme nt of a plea ding be simple, concise, a nd direc t." F ed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (e )(1)
. The Court has r eviewe d the complaint, mindful that complaints filed by pro se litiga

nts are he ld to less stringe nt standards than f ormal plea dings dr afte d by lawyers. See Haines v. K erne r, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). B ut "[e]ven pro se litiga nts must comply

with the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e." See Washing ton v. Gere n, 675 F. Supp. 2d 26, 36 (D.D .C. 2009). J ones' complaint does not sufficie ntly

put the numerous def

endants on notice of the spec ific ac ts alleg ed to be unlawful; indee d, he make s only repe ated swe epingref

ere nces to the alleg ed unlawf ulness of the health ca re r efor m liti g ation, his ge nera l entitlement to TARP and other fede ral funds, a nd the alleg ed injustice of de fenda nts' a ctions. Nor does he articulate a c omprehe nsible leg al or fa ctual basis for r elief, e ven under the libera l notice pleadingstandards of the Fe dera l Rules. Where, a s here , a plaintiff ha s failed to comply with the Fe dera l Rules, the Court may dismiss the ac tion sua sponte. See F ed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ci ralsky v. Cent. Intellige nce A g ency , 355 F.3d 661, 669 ( D.C. Cir. 2004). Dismissal under Rule 8 " ' is usually rese rved f

or those ca ses
-2-in which the complaint is so confuse d, ambiguous, vague, or othe rwise unintellig ible that its true

substance, if

any , is well disguised.' " Cira lsky , 355 F.3d at 670 n.9 (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)). Jones' c omplaint satisfies this st andard. Even if Jones' c omplaint pled fac ts sufficient to support a c laim under the F alse Claims Act, this suit cannot g o forwa rd. A re lator in a qui tam ac tion may not proce ed pro se . See U.S. ex rel. Fisher

v. Networ

k Software Assocs., 377 F . Supp. 2d 195, 196 (D.D.C. 2005); Rockef eller v. Westinghouse Ele c. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 12 (D.D .C. 2003). "[A]lthough a qui tam re lator has an inter est in the ac tion, the rea l party in interest in such a c ase is the United States, reg ardle ss of whethe r the g overnme nt chooses to interve ne." U.S. ex rel. Fisher, 377 F . Supp. at 196. "T he nee d for a dequate leg al re prese ntation on behalf of the United States is obviously essential." Rockefe ller, 274 F . Supp. 2d at 16. Hence , J ones ca nnot maintain this sui t as qui tam relator bec ause of

his pro se status. For the fore g oing reasons, the c omplaint will be dism issed. A sepa rate Orde r
acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Dated: Septembe r 23, 2010

-3-