United States ex rel. Todd Alan Duell v. State of Hawaii, et al.

Duell · United States District Court for the District of Hawaii · April 3, 2026 · No. Civ. No. 26-00161 JMS-RT

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii orders pro se Plaintiff Todd Alan Duell to show cause why his purported False Claims Act qui tam complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend. The court concludes that a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States and that the complaint is incoherent, fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and does not state a plausible FCA claim. The court also directs the Clerk to unseal the complaint and Exhibit A, while leaving Exhibit B sealed pending possible redaction.

Holdings

  1. A pro se relator may not prosecute a qui tam action under the False Claims Act because the United States is the real party in interest and the action is not the relator's own case or one in which the relator has a personal interest for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
  2. A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte after the plaintiff has paid the filing fee if it gives notice of its intention to dismiss and affords the plaintiff an opportunity to submit a written response.
  3. The complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the False Claims Act.
  4. The Clerk was directed to unseal the complaint and Exhibit A because plaintiff could not proceed pro se with the qui tam action and the complaint otherwise lacked a basis to proceed under the False Claims Act.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a pro se relator may prosecute a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of the United States.
  2. Whether the court could sua sponte consider dismissal of a paid complaint after providing notice and an opportunity to respond.
  3. Whether the complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and stated a plausible claim for relief under the False Claims Act.
  4. Whether the complaint should remain sealed or be unsealed given that plaintiff could not proceed pro se with the qui tam action.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (12)

  • Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • United States ex rel. Mergent Services v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 244 (4th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Georgakis v. Illinois State University, 722 F.3d 1075, 1076–77 (7th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 335 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1029 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–80 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…