United States and Texas, ex rel. Ruth Torres v. Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al.

This case asks whether state officials may violate federal law, defraud the United States, engage in RICO, potentially enable national security risks at the world’s sixth busiest international port then use lawfare retaliation against a whistleblower with impunity. In this case, government officials acted under the color of law using the state judiciary as a shield to avoid accountability, which the federal courts upheld and furthered and the Department of Justice refused to perform their statutorily required duty under 31 U.S.C. §3730(a) to investigate. Whistleblower Torres’s complaint includes False Claim and §1983 claims and seeks injunctive relief against state and judicial officers for which immunity has been waived and exceptions apply—lack of jurisdiction and disqualification due to ultra vires acts and I or crime-fraud exception. The questions presented are:

1. Whether Constitional violations occur when federal judiciary fails to recuse as statutorily required, fails to provide de novo review of magistrates sua sponte dismissal of §1983 claims on the basis of judicial immunity denying a suspect class whistleblower relief from constitutional violations confirmed by sanction from the state judicial commission?

2. Circuit split warrants review re: i. use of sua sponte dismissal exclusively against pro se in forma pauperis litigants via U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) screening consistently benefitting government defendants undermines separation of powers; ii. magistrate preemptive prohibition to amend or file motion for appointment of counsel and subsequent adjudication absent de novo review conflicts with U.S. Const, art. Ill; and iii. rigid application of Iqbal/ Twombly nullifies Haines.

3. Circuit split on False Claims Act structural and procedural process, whether: i. sua sponte dismissal during the seal period—prior to notice or intervention from the United States ripens jurisdiction—violates separation-of-powers and denies litigants’ due process and equal protection; ii. FCA imposes a duty on the government to investigate prior to issuing notice; and iii. FCA claims may be advanced by pro se litigants or should be dismissed to benefit a hypothetical “better” litigant that can afford an attorney.