Duell v. State of Hawaii et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES, ex rel.
TODD ALAN DUELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL.,
Defendants.
CIV. NO. 26-00161 JMS-RT
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;
AND FOR CLERK TO UNSEAL
COMPLAINT
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; AND
FOR CLERK TO UNSEAL COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 31, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Todd Alan Duell (“Plaintiff” or
“Duell”) filed a “Petition for Qui Tam Complaint” “In Camera and Under Seal
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)” against the State of Hawaii and several
officials of the State of Hawaii and of the City & County of Honolulu. ECF No. 1.
The Complaint asserts that “Relator-Petitioner is the disregarded entity ‘TODD
ALAN DUELL’ and the “UNITED STATES is the Real Party in Interest.” Id. at
PageID.1. The Complaint was filed under seal because it cites the federal False
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

2
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 (“FCA”). See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (“The
complaint shall be filed in camera . . . .”). 1
Based on the following, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause by
April 30, 2026, why the Complaint should not be dismissed. See, e.g., Stoner v.
Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that
a pro se relator cannot “prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States”);
United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 2008)
(holding that pro se litigants lack statutory standing to bring qui tam claims
because “relators lack a personal interest in False Claims Act qui tam actions” and
“are not entitled to proceed pro se”). Alternatively, by April 30, 2026, Plaintiff
may obtain licensed counsel who may enter an appearance and certify in good faith
that there is a basis for filing a legitimate FCA suit. If counsel enters such an
appearance, counsel may seek leave to file an Amended Complaint under seal in
compliance with the provisions of the FCA. If Plaintiff does not show cause or
have counsel enter an appearance by April 30, 2026, the court will dismiss the
action without leave to amend.
Additionally, because Plaintiff may not bring a pro se qui tam FCA
action and because the current Complaint otherwise lacks any basis to proceed as a
qui tam action under the FCA, the Clerk is directed to UNSEAL the Complaint and
1 Plaintiff paid the $405 filing fee. See ECF No. 2.
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

3
Exhibit A, ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. 2 See, e.g., United States ex rel. Tung v. Hemmings,
2019 WL 3936968, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019) (“[B]ecause the Court finds
that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a qui tam action, the Clerk of Court is
directed to unseal this matter. All documents in the case should be filed
unsealed.”).
II. DISCUSSION
A federal court must screen an in forma pauperis civil action to
determine whether it is “frivolous or malicious[,] . . . fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted[,] or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). And even if a Plaintiff has
paid the full filing fee, a court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte provided the
court “give[s] notice of its intention to dismiss and afford[s] plaintiffs an
opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition . . . .” Reed v.
Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330,
335 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he district court must give notice of its sua sponte
intention to dismiss . . . .”); Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1029 (9th Cir. 2015)
2 Exhibit B, which appears to include private information covered under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5.2(a), shall remain under seal at present, subject to unsealing with redactions
later if necessary.
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

4
(“A frivolous action clogs the system and drains resources regardless of whether
the plaintiff pays the filing fee or proceeds in forma pauperis.”).
Accordingly, the court gives Plaintiff notice of its intention to dismiss
the Complaint without leave to amend unless Plaintiff can show cause why the
court should not do so. After a review of the Complaint, it is clear under well-
settled law that it should be dismissed. This is purported to be a qui tam action
under the FCA. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and acknowledges that the United
States is the real party in interest (if there is one). See ECF No. 1 at PageID.1, 4.
But a plaintiff may not file a qui tam action on a pro se basis. See, e.g., Stoner, 502
F.3d at 1127 (holding that a pro se relator cannot “prosecute a qui tam action on
behalf of the United States”); Mergent Servs., 540 F.3d at 93 (upholding dismissal
of pro se qui tam case, reasoning that “as the United States remains the real party
in interest in qui tam actions, the case . . . is not the relator’s own case as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1654, nor one in which he has an interest personal to him”)
(quotation marks and citations omitted); Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d
240, 244 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[A] relator cannot pursue a qui tam FCA suit pro se.”);
Georgakis v. Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075, 1076–77 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[T]o
maintain a suit on behalf of the government, the relator (as the qui tam plaintiff is
termed) has to be either licensed as a lawyer or represented by a lawyer . . . .”);
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

5
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[Plaintiff] could not
maintain a qui tam suit under the FCA as a pro se relator.”).
Moreover, the Complaint itself provides no basis for relief under the
FCA. That is, the Complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails
to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (providing that a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief” and a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–80 (2009) (explaining that, in
considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the court must set
conclusory factual allegations aside, accept non-conclusory factual allegations as
true, and determine whether these allegations state a plausible claim for relief)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Here, even liberally construing it, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), the Complaint both “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and fails to comply with Rule 8. The
Complaint is incoherent and rambling. To begin, Plaintiff identifies himself in an
affidavit as follows:
I, Todd: Duell, Sui Juris, am now giving FULL NOTICE
OF DISCLOSURE as to my formal request to the
CLERK OF COURT for my “SPECIAL VISITATION”
Sui Juris, Secured Party (U.C.C. § 9-105), NON-
PERSON (U.C.C. § 1-201 (27)), NON-RESIDENT
NON-DEBTOR (28 U.S.C. § 3002(4)), NON-
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 5 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

6
CORPORATE, NON-FICTION, NON-SUBJECT,
NONPARTICIPANT in any government programs, a
Living flesh and blood Man, standing on the ground,
undiminished capacity, NONCITIZEN, Internationally
Protected Person bearing CUSIP: 903287506, United
States Secretary of State Contract number:
23/01414:A22637197 (18 USC § 112, PL 94-467, PL 92-
539), made by absolute ministerial right to the Federal
Court pursuant to Federal Rute 8 (E) of the Rules of
Practice and Procedure as a “Restricted Appearance.”
ECF No. 1 at PageID.4–5.
Although unclear, Plaintiff’s theory appears to be that the State and
City & County of Honolulu entities defrauded the United States, described in part
by the following:
The following corporate entities, municipalities,
agencies, etc., and named Defendants acting as public
trustees are being charged in both their public official and
private capacity by operating under color of law at all
times in violation of 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 18
USC §§ 242, 245, 28 USC § 1343(a)(1-4) and by striking
against their oaths and the United States government in
violation of 5 USC §§ 3331, 3333, 7311, and 18 USC §
153 “Embezzlement against Estate” by intentionally,
deliberately, and negligently disregarding IRS
administrative laws and who appear as incidental
beneficiaries committing defalcation. They appear to be
taking false exemptions as willful tax protesters and tax
evaders and refuse to file tax returns or supply tax
records as a custom or policy to conceal willful and
intentional fraud. The bad actors have failed to
declassify the transfer of securities on their general
ledgers and balances sheets of their certified annual
financial reports in violation of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act and the Securities and Exchange Act; 18 USC
§ 1350. The list of named defendants includes all
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 6 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

7
successors and assigns and agents. Both CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU and STATE OF
HAWAII agencies are involved.
Id. at PageID.7–8. The Complaint, including an affidavit attached to it, explains:
It appears that the named defendants have sold,
transferred, or conveyed the securities to another person.
Relator never received any tax forms from the named
Defendants, including but not limited to IRS Form 1099
A “Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property.”
Relator never indorsed the securities at bar. There is no
contract, no agency agreement, no power of attorney, and
no power of trustee authorizing the use or access of the
disregarded entity “TODD ALAN DUELL” tax records
or for the creation of any bid, performance, and payments
bonds or any other securities.
Id. at PageID.11. It continues:
The named Defendants appear to be engaged in the
creation, sale, and transfer of security instrument(s)
bearing CUSIP: 091472209, 4812C0373.
In accordance to FASB rules for derecognition of
financial instruments transfer, the named Defendants are
mandated to document the accounting on the General
Ledger and Balance Sheet when they are created,
acquired, sold, transferred, exchanged, abandoned, etc.
The named Defendants are claiming they have no
financial records to account for the instrument(s) at bar.
This is willful gross accounting misconduct, gross
negligence, and willful disregard of the administrative
law of the Internal Revenue Service, and fraud and false
statements and concealment. This is grounds to audit
the Defendants violating 26 USC §§ 7201-7206.
Id. at PageID.13.
After listing 22 counts of alleged violations of various statutes,
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 7 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

8
Plaintiff seeks “recoupment” of $53,604,135,000, along with the “Qui Tam Filing
Fee” of $405, “Printing & Mailing Costs,” and “Postage Costs.” Id. at PageID.36.
Additionally, Plaintiff seeks various forms of injunctive relief, including:
4. That all trusts for any securities at bar shall be
immediately ordered revoked and revested back to a
restricted trust account in the name of the Relator,
Secured Party Grantor, Bailor, Owner, and Beneficiary
for willfully violating 26 USC § 676,
. . . .
9. Order the name[d] Defendants to identity the name
and contact information for their Bail Bond third party
surety company and order the production of the security
instruments, and
10. Order the name[d] Defendants to disclose the
agency, the name of the person, and their securities
license and bonding and underwriting policy to create the
CUSIP securities at bar in the name of the Relator and
produce their contract, agency agreements, power of
attorney, power of trustee, and any other authorization
documents to create and sell any securities on behalf of
the Relator.
11. Order the Securities and Exchange Commission to
produce the original Bid, Performance, and Payment
bond(s) for the CUSIP securities at bar for inspection for
aggravated identity theft and fraud. See SEC Rule l0b-5,
18 USC §§ 472, 475.
12. Order all Clerks of the Court, Judges, and BAR
members or any other named Defendant working for a
Public Agency, who may also be required to have an
Oath of Office on file to produce a properly notarized
SF-61 and FARA registration statement under 22
USC § 611 et. seq. (See 611-613g).
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 8 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

9
13. Order the Internal Revenue Service to place an IRS
Criminal Investigation Division, CPA, Enrolled Agent,
who is GAAP/GAAS certified over the CFO and/or
Agency Executive Finance Officer to audit, monitor, and
correct all IRC violations, including investigating
possible IRC § 679 violations for the Foreign Granter
Trust, and
. . . .
17. Order the Social Security Administration to perform
a mandatory audit by an independent CPA of the access
and use of Realtor-Petitioner’s Social Security Number,
and
18. That this Court enter judgment against the named
Defendants in an amount equal to three (3) times the
amount of damages the UNITED STATES has sustained
because of Defendant’s actions, plus a civil penalty of
not less than $5,000 and not more than $11,000 for each
violation of 31 USC § 3729 . . . .
Id. at PageID.37–40.
Given these specious allegations, the Complaint plainly fails to state a
plausible claim under the FCA. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–80.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the court gives notice to Plaintiff that the court intends
to dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend, unless Plaintiff can show cause
by April 30, 2026, why the Complaint should not be dismissed. Any response is
limited to ten pages. Alternatively, counsel who is licensed to practice in Hawaii
and is authorized to practice in the District of Hawaii may enter an appearance by
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 9 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

10
April 30, 2026, and explain in good faith how Plaintiff could file a valid qui tam
FCA complaint. If counsel enters such an appearance, counsel may seek leave to
file an Amended Complaint under seal in compliance with the FCA. If such
response is not filed by April 30, 2026, the court will dismiss the Complaint
without prejudice and instruct the Clerk to close the case.
Meanwhile, the Clerk is directed to UNSEAL the Complaint and
Exhibit A, ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. See, e.g., Hemmings, 2019 WL 3936968, at *2
(“Normally a qui tam complaint would remain sealed for sixty days . . . during
which time the government must determine whether to intervene and proceed with
the action. . . . But because the Court finds that Plaintiff does not have standing to
bring a qui tam action, the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this matter. All
documents in the case should be filed unsealed.”) (citations omitted).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 3, 2026.
/s/ J. Michael Seabright
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00161-JMS-RT Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 10 of 10
PageID.<pageID>