United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Complaint of pro
se Plaintiff Mark Downey against Defendants United
States of America, William Barr, Justin Herdman, and Laura
Malone. He seeks to recover $56.68 Billion Dollars. Doc. # 1;
Doc. # 1-1. Plaintiff moves to proceed with this action
in forma pauperis, and that motion is granted (Doc.
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.
states that he is representing the federal government in an
action brought pursuant to the False Claims Act
(“FCA”) and Dodd Frank Act (“DFA”) to
recover massive cost overruns, excessive spending, and fraud
to recover revenue with the goal of reducing the $21 Trillion
Dollar federal deficit. See Doc. # 1 at 4; Doc. #
1-1 at 2. The Complaint, consisting of 89 pages, asserts 45
claims for relief. Plaintiff alleges that the “Federal
Government employed the Plaintiff as a Federal
Whistleblower.” Doc. # 1 at 85. He claims that his work
of five years was illegally destroyed by the federal
government with no compensation and the “unjustified
whistleblower claim denial recourse is to file suit.”
Id. at 4.
filed a supplement to the Complaint, withdrawing his request
for a jury demand and asking the Court to grant his a motion
requesting that the entire case be ruled upon by
correspondence and without appearance because Plaintiff is
disabled and cannot travel to the Court. Doc. # 3.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972), the district court is required to dismiss an
in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197
(6th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff's Complaint is entitled to liberal
construction, the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded
facts or construct claims on Plaintiff's behalf. See
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985). Moreover, “[i]f the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
states that he represents the Federal Government in qui tam,
the FCA and DFA claims to recover federal revenues. Doc. # 1
at 34. Plaintiff alleges in support of his FCA and DFA claims
that Defendants have violated numerous federal laws and that
all Defendants are “accomplices and collaborators in
all Counts.” Doc. # 1-1 at 1.
initial matter, Plaintiff's rambling and conclusory
allegations generally asserted against all Defendants fail to
satisfy basic pleading requirements and the Complaint is
subject to dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) on this
basis alone. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (pleading must
contain factual allegations sufficient to place each
individual defendant on notice of the claim asserted against
him); see also Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ.,
76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to
accept summary allegations or unwarranted conclusions in
determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief).
respect to his FCA claim,
The False Claims Act (FCA) prohibits a person from making
false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States.
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). That prohibition may be enforced in
suits filed by the Attorney General, § 3730(a), and in
qui tam actions brought by ...