United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED PRO
SE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT AND
Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court
Plaintiff Said Samaan filed the instant Qui Tam
False Claims Act Complaint under seal against Defendant
General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. on May 26, 2016. On June
14, 2017, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow entered an Order to Unseal
the Complaint after the United States declined to intervene
in the action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.
§ 3730(b)(4)(B). (Doc. No. 8) On August 4, 2017, Judge
Tarnow entered an Order granting the motion to withdraw as
counsel filed by Samaan's counsel and allowed Samaan to
secure new counsel within 60 days. (Doc. No. 10)
September 27, 2017, Samaan filed the instant Motion for
Pro Se Status and a One Month Extension of Time to
Serve. The United States filed a response, indicating that as
Samaan noted in his motion, a private person cannot bring a
qui tam on behalf of the United States without being
represented by counsel. (Doc. No. 13, Pg ID 49) Samaan filed
a reply agreeing with the United States that he cannot
represent the United States' interests without counsel.
However, Samaan argues that he can proceed pro se as
to his claim of retaliatory discharge under 31 U.S.C. §
3730(h) and major fraud against the United States under 18
U.S.C. § 1031(h).
agreed to by both the United States and Samaan, the FCA makes
clear that notwithstanding a relator's statutory right to
any recovery under the FCA, the underlying claim of fraud
always belongs to the United States. Stoner v. Santa
Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th
Cir. 2007); 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(5). Where the government
declines to intervene, a relator bringing a qui tam
action for a violation of § 3729 is representing the
interests of the government and prosecuting the action on the
government's behalf. Id.; 31 U.S.C. §
3730(b)(1). Because qui tam relators are not
prosecuting only their “own case” but are also
representing the United States and binding it to any adverse
judgment the relators may obtain, 28 U.S.C. § 1654 does
not authorize qui tam relators to proceed pro
se in FCA actions. Id. at 1126-27.
United States, having declined to intervene in this matter,
and Samaan, failing to secure counsel to date, the Court
denies Samaan's Motion to proceed pro se in this
matter. Samaan agrees that he is unable to proceed without
counsel on any claims against Defendant General Dynamics
under the FCA.
Court also denies Samaan's motion to proceed pro
se as to any retaliation or discrimination claim he may
have against Defendant General Dynamics. In a separate action
filed by Samaan, the Court issued an order and judgment
against Samaan regarding his employee retaliation and
discrimination claims, confirming an arbitrator's finding
in favor of Defendant General Dynamics. See, Samaan v.
General Dynamics, No. 11-13869, Doc. Nos. 38 (Order
Denying Motion to Vacate Arbitration and Confirming
Arbitration Ruling) and 39 (Judgment). The Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's Order. (No.
11-13869, Doc. No. 45) The Sixth Circuit Mandate issued on
September 23, 2016. (No. 11-13869, Doc. No. 46) Samaan cannot
relitigate the claims relating to his employment with
Defendant General Dynamics, which ended on June 30, 2011.
(Complaint in this case, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 5, Pg ID 2).
Samaan's claims regarding his employment status are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
modern form, the doctrine of res judicata involves
both “claim preclusion” and “issue
preclusion.” See Migra v. Warren City School
District Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n. 1 (1984).
Claim preclusion involves three elements: 1) there must be a
final judgment on the merits on the prior lawsuit; 2) the
same claims are involved; and 3) the same parties or their
privies are involved. EEOC v. United States Steel
Corp., 921 F.2d 489, 493 (3rd Cir. 1990); Montana v.
United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979); James v.
Gerber Products Co., 587 F.2d 324, 327-28 (6th Cir.
1978). Res judicata requires that a plaintiff
initially raise all claims in prior suits and therefore bars
those claims from being litigated at some future time. See
Rivers v. Barberton Board of Education, 143 F.3d
1029, 1031-32 (6th Cir. 1998).
Court entered a Judgment against Samaan, the same claims-his
claims regarding his employment status-are involved, and the
same parties (Samaan and General Dynamics) are involved.
Samaan's claims relating to his employment status are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff/Relator Said Samaan's Motion
for Pro Se Status and Extension of Time to Serve
(Doc. No. 12) is DENIED and any False Claims
Act counts filed on behalf of the United States are
FURTHER ORDERED that any claims relating to Plaintiff/Relator
Said Samaan's employment with Defendant General Dynamics
are DISMISSED with prejudice based on the doctrine of res
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is designated as CLOSED on
the Court's docket.
 This matter was reassigned to the
undersigned on December 8, ...