From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MANNING v. POGO PRODUCING COMPANY

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
Nov 12, 2008
CIVIL ACTION H-08-2896 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION H-08-2896.

November 12, 2008


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND SETTING DEADLINE


Ronald B. Manning filed this action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. The plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). Michael Steven Porter has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Docket Entry No. 7). Porter asserts that he agreed to represent the plaintiff only if the United States intervened. The United States has conducted its investigation and declined to intervene, and Porter accordingly moves to withdraw.

A pro se litigant may not prosecute a False Claims Act suit. See Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-1128 (9th Cir. 2007); United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872-874 (11th Cir. 2008); U.S. ex rel. Mergent Services v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92-94 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Safir v. Blackwell, 579 F.2d 742, 745 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951).

Porter may not proceed pro se in this action.

The motion to withdraw is granted. The relator has until January 5, 2009, to have new counsel file an appearance. If that does not occur, this action will be dismissed.


Summaries of

MANNING v. POGO PRODUCING COMPANY

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
Nov 12, 2008
CIVIL ACTION H-08-2896 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2008)
Case details for

MANNING v. POGO PRODUCING COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:RONALD B. MANNING, Relator, for THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

Date published: Nov 12, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION H-08-2896 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2008)

Citing Cases

Patton v. City of Westwego

Manning v. Pogo Producing Company, Civ. Action No. H-08-2896, 2008 WL 4889032, at *1 (S.D. Tex. …

Cadena v. Hicks

However, a pro se plaintiff cannot bring a qui tam action. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. et al v.…