Michael J. O’connell v. Regents of the University of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL J. O’CONNELL, Relator; ex
rel. United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17528
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02880-HSG
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-17528
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 of 2 --