Tlatoani Teotl Tenamaxtle Trust Eto v. Shiela Polk

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TLATOANI-TEOTL TENAMAXTLE, No. 23-55477 TRUST ETO, Tenamxtle, Tlatoani-Teotl, beneficary, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01107-RSH-BLM Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. SHIELA S. POLK, Yavapai County Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Robert S. Huie, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 29, 2024** Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Tlatoani-Teotl Tenamaxtle Trust ETO appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing its qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action where Tenamaxtle failed to serve the federal government or obtain counsel, despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (factors that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (this court may review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors); see also 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (FCA qui tam plaintiffs must serve federal government at outset before case can proceed); Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (FCA qui tam plaintiffs may not proceed pro se). We reject as unsupported by the record Tenamaxtle’s contentions that the district court was biased against it. AFFIRMED. 2 23-55477