Filed: Sep. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2020
Summary: Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 20-11014 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00159-TES ANGELES FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HELMS CAREER INSTITUTE, EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, BASS AND ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _ (September 11, 2020) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, C
Summary: Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 20-11014 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00159-TES ANGELES FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HELMS CAREER INSTITUTE, EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, BASS AND ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _ (September 11, 2020) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Ci..
More
Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11014
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00159-TES
ANGELES FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HELMS CAREER INSTITUTE,
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
BASS AND ASSOCIATES,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(September 11, 2020)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 2 of 6
Angeles Ford, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
without prejudice of her civil action against defendants Bass and Associates, PC
(“Bass”); Helms Career Institute (“Helms”); and Educational Credit Management
Corporation (“ECMC”). On appeal, Ford argues that the district court clerk failed
to docket two filings that she had submitted to the court. According to Ford, if the
district court had considered these two filings, it would not have dismissed her
claims against the defendants under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C.
§§ 3729–33. But the record reflects that the two documents that Ford claims were
omitted actually were before the district court. Furthermore, we cannot say that the
district court erred in dismissing Ford’s FCA claims because an individual may not
maintain a qui tam action under the FCA as a pro se litigant. We thus affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In this action, Ford alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to
defraud the United States government. According to Ford, Helms, an educational
institution, reported to the government that she and other individuals had defaulted
on student loans, even though they had never attended Helms and thus owed it no
money. According to Ford, defendants Bass and ECMC then attempted to collect
the defaulted student loans on behalf of the Department of Education, knowing the
debts were illegitimate.
2
Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 3 of 6
In the operative complaint, Ford alleged that the defendants had defrauded
the United States and violated the FCA and criminal fraud statutes. Although Ford
purported to seek relief under the FCA, she did not follow the required procedures
to bring a qui tam action under the FCA. She did not bring the action in the name
of the United States government, serve a copy of the complaint upon the
government, or file her complaint under seal. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).
Ford served Helms and ECMC with the complaint. Helms moved to dismiss
the complaint. Helms explained that although Ford purported to sue under the
FCA, she had not complied with the “very specific statutory framework” and
“[s]pecial procedures” that applied when a relator brought an FCA action. Doc. 32
at 3.1 The district court granted Helms’s motion, but it construed Ford’s complaint
as potentially bringing a state law fraud claim and allowed that claim to proceed.
Meanwhile, Bass entered a “special appearance” in the action, contending
that Ford had failed to serve it with the complaint. Doc. 22. Ford moved to strike
Bass’s pleading, asserting that she had perfected service. Bass responded to the
motion to strike, reiterating that Ford had failed to perfect service upon it. Ford
then filed a document, titled “Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Objection
and Strike to Defendant Bass,” reiterating her position that the court should strike
Bass’s answer. The district court clerk’s office accepted the filing, which appears
1
“Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
3
Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 4 of 6
as docket entry 46, labeling it as “Reply to Response . . . re . . . MOTION to
Strike.”
Ford separately filed a motion for contempt in which she claimed that the
defendants engaged in fraudulent and deceptive actions in connection with their
attempts to collect a fraudulent student loan debt. A few weeks after filing the
contempt motion—on the same day that Ford submitted the reply in support of her
motion to strike—she submitted another filing related to her motion for contempt.
She titled her submission as a “Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Move to
Title 31 USC Section 3730.” Doc. 45 at 1. The district court clerk’s office also
accepted this filing, which appears at docket entry 45, labeling it as “Reply to
Response . . . re MOTION for Contempt.” The district court denied the motion to
strike and the motion for contempt.
The district court then entered a series of orders that disposed of the claims
remaining in the case. The court dismissed Ford’s claims against Bass on the
ground that she had failed to perfect service on Bass within the time period
permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The district court also
dismissed Ford’s claims against ECMC for failure to state a claim.
At this point, the only claim left in the action was Ford’s state law fraud
claim against Helms. Helms moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no
diversity jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship between Ford
4
Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 5 of 6
and Helms. The court agreed that there was no diversity of citizenship and granted
the motion. Having dismissed all of Ford’s federal claims, the court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. This is Ford’s appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. See
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008).
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Ford argues that the district court’s clerk failed to place on the docket two
documents that she sent for filing. If the district court had reviewed these filings,
she says, it would have allowed her claims under the FCA to go forward.
We begin with Ford’s assertion that the clerk failed to place on the docket
two documents she submitted for filing, her “Brief in Support of Motion to
Objection and Strike . . .” and her “Brief in Support of Motion to Move to Title 31
USC section 3730.” The record shows, however, that these documents were filed
and included in the district court record at docket entries 45 and 46. Because these
documents were in fact before the district court, we are left with Ford’s argument
that the district court erred in dismissing her FCA claim. We see no error.
The FCA permits a private individual, or “relator,” to file a qui tam action
against a party on her own behalf and on behalf of the government. Timson,
518 F.3d at 872; see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). If the government elects not to
5
Case: 20-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 6 of 6
intervene, the relator then has the right to proceed with the action. 31 U.S.C.
§ 3730(c)(3). Although the FCA itself is silent as to whether a private individual
can bring a qui tam suit pro se, we have held that an individual may “not maintain
a qui tam suit under the FCA as a pro se relator.” Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
Because our decision in Timson established that Ford could not proceed pro se to
litigate this qui tam action, the district court did not err in dismissing her FCA
claims.2
AFFIRMED.
2
Although Ford brought other claims against the defendants, she abandoned any
challenge to the district court’s dismissal of those claims by failing to raise any argument on
appeal challenging the dismissal of those claims. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
6
