Coleman v. Dept of US Air Force ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-51176
Summary Calendar
WILBERT ANTONIO COLEMAN, Pastor
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-889
--------------------
July 28, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilbert Antonio Coleman appeals the dismissal of his claim
against the United States Air Force (“USAF”) under 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729 (“False Claims Act”). This court may sua sponte raise the
issue of its subject-matter jurisdiction. Burge v. Parish of St.
Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1999).
The False Claims Act was enacted in order to discourage
fraud against the government. Robertson v. Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc., 32 F.3d 948, 951 (5th Cir. 1994). Coleman’s
claims are not within the ambit of the False Claims Act. He does
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-51176
-2-
not allege that the Government has been defrauded by any act of
the USAF. He argues instead that he was defrauded by the USAF’s
refusal to correct his military record by granting him a
disability rating. Coleman has not met his burden of
demonstrating that federal-question jurisdiction was proper under
the False Claims Act.
Because Coleman’s complaint did not establish either
diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, his action should
have been dismissed without prejudice by the district court for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Without addressing the
correctness of the the grounds upon which the district court
based its dismissal, it is clear that the district court reached
the correct result. Accordingly the district court’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
Coleman has filed a motion to have stricken from the record
the brief and record excerpts filed by the appellee because no
copy has ever been served on him. Because subject-matter
jurisdiction is lacking and Coleman’s appeal was not considered
on its merits, his motion is DENIED.
The defendants have moved for the imposition of sanctions.
This is not the first appeal brought by Coleman involving his
benefits determination and the False Claims Act.
In each of Coleman’s three previous appeals, the claim arose
from the denial of his disability benefits, the complaint was
based on the False Claims Act, and the district court dismissed
the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Coleman
v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 98-50168,
No. 99-51176
-3-
(sanction warning); Coleman v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
No. 98-50736, ($105 sanction); Coleman v. Disabled American
Veterans, No. 99-50076, ($210 sanction). This court has
expressly stated that the False Claims Act “will not support a
private individual’s action against the Government or its
agencies.” Coleman v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 98-
50736 (5th Cir. Feb. 10, 1999)(unpublished) (citing Coleman v.
U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 98-50168 (5th Cir. Oct. 20,
1998)(unpublished)).
A plaintiff’s continued pursuit of his plainly meritless
claims in federal court when there is no diversity or federal-
question jurisdiction warrants the imposition of sanctions. See
Griggs v. State Farm Lloyd’s, 181 F.3d 694 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because Coleman was put on notice by two prior decisions from
this court that the False Claims Act will not support the type of
claim he has brought here against the USAF, IT IS ORDERED that
Coleman is sanctioned $750. This sanction must be paid to the
clerk of this court. The clerk of this court and the clerk of
all federal district courts within this circuit are directed to
refuse to file any pro se civil complaint or appeal by Coleman
unless he submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction.
MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED; SANCTION IMPOSED.