Johnson and Camache, the Defendants who submitted the application for a grant under VOITIG, were acting in anything other than their official capacities. See United States ex rel Gaudineer & Comito, LLP., v. Iowa, 269 F.3d 932, 937 (8th Cir.2001)(denying as futile motion to amend complaint to add claim against state official in his individual capacity). There are no allegations that Johnson or Camache, or any of the other defendants, converted funds from VOITIG to then-personal use. See Smith v. United States, 287 F.2d 299 (5th Cir.1961)(indicating FCA claims against government officials in their personal capacities should rest on allegations of personal gain); United States ex rel Honeywell, Inc. v. San Francisco Housing Authority, NO. C99-1936, 2001 WL 793300 at *5 (N.D.Cal.2001)(<HOLDING>); United States ex rel Kinney v. Stoltz, NO.
holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities holding that since damage claims in an article 78 proceeding may only be asserted against individuals in their official capacities the plaintiff could not have recovered damages against the education officials in their individual capacities and therefore cannot be barred by res judicata  holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities holding that fca retaliation claim must fail as against defendants sued in their individual capacities because such individuals were not employers holding that fca claims against government officials in their personal capacities must contain allegations of personal gain