Court Opinion

ID: 2732932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-15 21:00:42.820131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:34.501406
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  L  D
SEP 1 5 2014
) C|e'rk, U'.§.`b'|'éf€l<`:t`§nd
A1exander Otis Matthews, ) sankl’upl-'CV CO\-ll'f$
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. Action No. !zl" 
)
Charles E. Samuels, Jr. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a qui lam suit, see Compl. Caption, and moves
to proceed in forma pauperis. "A pro se plaintiff may not file a qui tam action pursuant to the
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq." Jones v. Jz`ndal, 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. 1]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 83.1 l(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 Opini0n.

DATE: September  ,2014