MICHAEL HUCUL V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 19-56056 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 17 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL HUCUL, Relator, Plaintiff-Appellant, and U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-56056 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01306-DMS-LL MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Michael Hucul appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). his qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hucul’s qui tam action for failure to comply with court orders because Hucul failed to comply with the district court’s orders to retain counsel after being warned that failure to retain counsel would result in dismissal of the action, and being provided with an extension of time to do so. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 83.1(a) (failure to comply with a court order may be grounds for dismissal); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (this court gives “[b]road deference” to a district court’s application of its local rules); Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 112627 (9th Cir. 2007) (a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action under the Federal Claims Act on behalf of the United States). We reject as meritless Hucul’s contention that the district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint, as amendment would not have remedied Hucul’s pro se status. AFFIRMED. 2 19-56056
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
