United States ex rel. Gilbert v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

MEMORANDUM **

Herbert Gilbert appeals pro se the district court’s order denying Gilbert leave to file a successive motion for relief from judgment and finding Gilbert a vexatious litigant in his qui tam action alleging that the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) and others violated the False Claims Act by submitting to the federal government false information about BART’s ability to run trains more frequently without compromising safety. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. *489 § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.1990) (vexatious litigant order); Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.1987) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) motion), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gilbert leave to file a motion for relief from judgment because, regardless of the new evidence he sought to introduce, it was clear from the face of Gilbert’s complaint that he could not state a claim as he was not the original source of fraud allegations, and those allegations were based on prior public disclosures. See Coastal Transfer Co., 833 F.2d at 211 ; United States ex…