
    Michael J. O’CONNELL, Relator; ex rel. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-17528
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 22, 2016
    Michael J. O’Connell, Law Office, Pro Se, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael J. O’Connell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed O’Connell’s action because the Regents of the University of California are a state entity and the False Claims Act does not provide a private right of action against state entities. See Donald v. Univ. of Cal. Bd. of Regents, 329 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because a state entity is not identified as a ‘person’ for purposes of § 3729, the relators can claim no statutory basis under § 3730(b)(1) to bring suit against the Regents.”); see also Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (“We hold that a private individual has standing to bring suit in federal court on 'behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, but that the False Claims Act does not subject a State (or state agency) to liability in such actions.”).

Contrary to O’Connell’s contention, the district court did not err in dismissing O’Connell’s action prior to the issuance of a summons. See Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     