ROSSI v. UHTMEIER et al

Page 1 of 3
Case No. 4:26cv393-RH-MAF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JUSTIN MICHAEL ROSSI,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 4:26cv393-RH-MAF
JAMES UHTMEIER,
RON DESANTIS,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The plaintiff apparently asserts he is being wrongfully detained at the
Florida State Hospital, apparently on the order of a Florida state court. This federal
action—labeled a qui tam action by the plaintiff—is before the court on the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 9, and the “motion to
district judge,” ECF No. 12, which sets out contentions that are, in substance,
objections to the report and recommendation. As proper under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72, I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
The plaintiff’s principal contention is that three earlier cases—at least two
explicitly labeled habeas petitions—were dismissed by other judges of this court.
Case 4:26-cv-00393-RH-MAF Document 13 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 4:26cv393-RH-MAF
Unable to get past the disapproval of his habeas filings, he has turned to the False
Claims Act, under which a relator can file a qui tam action—a fraud claim on
behalf of the United States.
The report and recommendation correctly concludes that the complaint fails
to state a qui tam claim on which relief can be granted. At least as importantly, a
relator who is not an attorney cannot pursue a qui tam action pro se—that is,
without an attorney. This is so because a relator acts for the United States, and
while a layperson can represent himself in federal litigation, a layperson cannot
represent someone else. In a qui tam action, the “someone else” is the United
States. There can be no pro se qui tam action.
This action thus must be dismissed. This does not mean the dismissals of the
plaintiff’s earlier actions in this court were unreviewable. But review of a decision
of a district court lies in the appropriate court of appeals—for this district, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Review is not available
through a new action in district court that in effect asks one district judge to review
another district judge’s decision.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s
further opinion.
Case 4:26-cv-00393-RH-MAF Document 13 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 4:26cv393-RH-MAF
2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This action is dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.”
3. The clerk must close the file.
SO ORDERED on October 9, 2026.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00393-RH-MAF Document 13 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3