MICHAEL O'CONNELL V. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CA, No. 15-17528 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL J. O’CONNELL, Relator; ex rel. United States of America, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-17528 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02880-HSG Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2016** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Michael J. O’Connell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Omar v. Sea-Land * 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). Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed O’Connell’s action because the Regents of the University of California are a state entity and the False Claims Act does not provide a private right of action against state entities. See Donald v. Univ. of Cal. Bd. of Regents, 329 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because a state entity is not identified as a ‘person’ for purposes of § 3729, the relators can claim no statutory basis under § 3730(b)(1) to bring suit against the Regents.”); see also Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88 (2000) (“We hold that a private individual has standing to bring suit in federal court on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, but that the False Claims Act does not subject a State (or state agency) to liability in such actions.”). Contrary to O’Connell’s contention, the district court did not err in dismissing O’Connell’s action prior to the issuance of a summons. See Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 1981). AFFIRMED. 2 15-17528
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.
