Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center

Background

Robert Mercer filed this action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that Westchester Medical Center violated the False Claims Act, a federal law imposing civil liability for certain knowing false claims involving the federal government.

According to the complaint, Mercer was admitted to the hospital’s Behavioral Health Center on March 1, 2021. On March 15, a staff member allegedly told him that his involuntary status had expired and that he needed to sign a notice-of-status form to change to voluntary status. Mercer understood the staff member to say that he could then submit a “72 hour Notice” to discharge himself. After reviewing the form, Mercer concluded that it instead gave the hospital director 72 hours to ask a court to keep a patient hospitalized for up to 120 days if the director believed the patient met the requirements for involuntary admission. Mercer alleged that the staff member’s explanation was a false statement under the False Claims Act. He also alleged that he was discharged on March 17, two days later than the document he signed required, causing mental anguish and post-traumatic stress disorder. He sought $2 billion in damages and a civil penalty of up to $10,000.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the standards applicable to a fee-free complaint. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The False Claims Act permits the federal government or a private person called a “relator” to bring a qui tam action on the government’s behalf. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court held that a person proceeding without a lawyer lacks statutory standing to bring a qui tam claim under the Act because the relator lacks a personal interest in that type of claim. The court therefore dismissed Mercer’s False Claims Act claims for lack of statutory standing.

The court also stated that Mercer may be asserting state-law claims. Because it had dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the qui tam claims under the False Claims Act for lack of statutory standing. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Mercer may have been asserting and denied leave to amend. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not reach the truth of Mercer’s allegations or decide the merits of any state-law claims.