Honda v. Passos

Background

Marcal Honda appeared without a lawyer and asserted claims on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, a federal law that allows certain private individuals to sue over alleged fraud against the government. The court also understood the complaint to assert claims on Honda’s own behalf under state law.

The complaint concerned alleged failures by the Brazilian government involving agreements with the United States and the use of United States funds. It also alleged that DHL Express delayed or returned documents Honda had sent from Brazil to the court in connection with an earlier action. Honda alleged that one package was delayed at John F. Kennedy International Airport and returned to Brazil, and that a second package was delivered after the earlier action had already been dismissed.

Honda sought criminal prosecution of the defendants or others and referred to an alleged financial fraud involving $38,304,402 paid to Brazil’s Ministry of Justice. The opinion states that the complaint was difficult to understand.

Legal standards

Because Honda had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear them. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims seeking criminal prosecution

The court dismissed Honda’s claims seeking criminal prosecution of the defendants or others for failure to state a claim. It explained that a private person cannot prosecute a federal criminal case, and that decisions to bring federal criminal charges belong to federal prosecutors.

Claims against Daniel Silva Passos

Honda asserted False Claims Act claims against Passos. The court dismissed those claims for lack of statutory standing. It relied on its ruling in the earlier round of this case and explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer cannot litigate a False Claims Act qui tam claim because the United States is the real party in interest and the claim is not the person’s own personal case.

Claims against DHL Express

The court treated Honda’s claims against DHL as claims based on diversity jurisdiction. To use that jurisdiction, Honda had to allege facts showing the required citizenship difference between the parties and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000.

The court stated that Honda appeared to allege that he was a citizen of Brazil, although his address of record was in Dothan, Alabama, and that DHL was a citizen of New York. But Honda did not allege facts showing that his claims against DHL met the more-than-$75,000 amount requirement. The court therefore dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the criminal-prosecution claims for failure to state a claim, dismissed the False Claims Act claims against Passos for lack of statutory standing, and dismissed the claims against DHL Express for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted Honda leave to replead his claims against DHL in an amended complaint within 30 days of the order’s date, with facts showing that diversity jurisdiction exists. If Honda did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action for the reasons in the order.

The court also stated that it would not rule on Honda’s request for pro bono counsel until after he filed an amended complaint complying with the order. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.