Bean v. Perdue
| Decision Date | 11 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 17-0140 (RC) |
| Parties | ROBERT ONEAL BEAN, Plaintiff, v. SONNY PERDUE, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Robert Oneal Bean brought this action against the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") because the USDA denied him loan servicing and decided to foreclose on land that Mr. Bean had purchased. Mr. Bean claims that these acts violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), Pub. L. 79-404, § 706, 60 Stat. 237 (), the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, § 741, 112 Stat. 2681 (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2279)) ("1999 Agricultural Appropriations Act"), "and/or the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008," Pub. L. 110-234, § 14011, 122 Stat. 923 ("2008 Farm Bill"). See Am. Compl. at 5-6, ECF No. 3. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Robert Oneal Bean, an African American farmer from Mississippi, borrowed approximately $50,000 from the Farm Service Agency ("FSA") to purchase a 120-acre tract of farm land in 2001. Am. Compl. at 3, ECF No. 3. Mr. Bean made timely payments to FSA until 2011, when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Am. Compl. at 4. Thereafter, Mr. Bean fell behind in his payments. See id. Later that year, an FSA Loan Officer accelerated Mr. Bean's loan and demanded that Mr. Bean pay the full balance to avoid foreclosure. See Am. Compl. at 4. In response, Mr. Bean submitted medical records demonstrating that he had cancer, hoping that the FSA would allow him the opportunity to recover. See id.
Mr. Bean alleges that in the Fall of 2016, the FSA Loan Officer advised Mr. Bean that the FSA could divide his land and sell a sufficient amount to satisfy the $40,000 that Mr. Bean still owed to the FSA. See Am. Compl. at 4. On December 15, 2016, during a visit to an FSA Office, Mr. Bean asked the FSA Loan Officer whether he could apply to reschedule his outstanding debt. See Am. Compl. at 4-5. The FSA Loan Officer replied that Mr. Bean had forfeited that opportunity for loan servicing because Mr. Bean had not completed the necessary application in a timely manner (sixty days from the receipt of the application materials). See Am. Compl. at 5. Mr. Bean alleges that he was not aware of any application and, in any event, he could not have submitted any such application due to his prostate cancer. See id. Mr. Bean does not affirmatively allege that he did not receive a loan servicing application. Rather, he alleges that he "does not recall" receiving an application, either in person or through the mail. Id.
On January 23, 2017, Mr. Bean filed this action claiming that the USDA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the APA, and discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the 1999 Agricultural Appropriations Act, and the 2008 Farm Bill.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim" in order to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not test a plaintiff's ultimate likelihood of success on the merits; rather, it tests whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). A court considering such a motion presumes that the complaint's factual allegations are true and construes them liberally in the plaintiff's favor. See, e.g., United States v. Philip Morris, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 131, 135 (D.D.C. 2000).
Nevertheless, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This means that a plaintiff's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements," are therefore insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true, see id., nor must a court presume the veracity of the legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Much of Mr. Bean's Amended Complaint and briefing is devoted to his assertion that he is a claimant under Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999) ("Pigford") and that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the consent decree entered in that case. See Am. Compl. at 1-3; Pl.'s Opp'n Mot. Dismiss ("Opp'n") at 2-4, 5-6, ECF No. 18. Defendant argues that Mr. Bean's status as a Pigford claimant is irrelevant. See Def.'s Mot. Dismiss ("MTD") at 6-7, ECF No. 16. The Court agrees and finds that Pigford is inapposite to the validity of Mr. Bean's claims.
Pigford was a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of African-American farmers in 1997. See Pigford, 185 F.R.D. at 89. Plaintiffs in that case alleged that the USDA violated the Equal Credit and Opportunities Act ("ECOA") when it discriminated against African-American farmers with respect to its administration of its federal farm credit and benefit programs. See id. at 87. The Pigford plaintiffs further alleged that the USDA violated the APA when it failed to properly investigate and respond to complaints from 1981 through 1996. See id. at 98, 105. In that case, the court certified a class, which it defined as:
All African American farmers who (1) farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996; (2) applied to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) during that time period for participation in a federal farm credit or benefit program and who believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race in USDA's response to that application; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1, 1997, regarding USDA's treatment of such farm credit or benefit application.
On April 14, 1999, the court in Pigford entered a consent decree that settled plaintiffs' claims. See 185 F.R.D. at 112. The consent decree instructed class members to file their claims under a two-track system. See 185 F.R.D. at 95. Under Track A, "class members with little or no documentary evidence" were entitled to "a virtually automatic cash payment of $50,000, and forgiveness of debt owed to the USDA." Id. Under Track B, class members were given the chance to "prove their cases with documentary or other evidence by a preponderance of the evidence [with] . . . no cap on the amount they may recover." Id. Class members seeking relief under the consent decree were required to submit their claims packages on or before October 12, 1999. Consent Decree ¶ 5(c), Pigford, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999) (No. 97-cv-1978) ("Consent Decree"). A late claim could only proceed after an arbitrator determined that the claimant's "failure to submit a timely claim was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond his control." Consent Decree ¶ 5(g). By December 31, 2010, over one billion dollars had been awarded to approximately 16,000 successful claimants in the form of direct payments, loan forgiveness, and tax relief. See In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2011). More than 58,000 individuals, though, were denied leave to submit late claim packages. See id.
In 2008, after extensive hearings, Congress resurrected the late Pigford claims in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ("2008 Farm Bill"). Id. Under this Act, "[a]ny Pigford claimant who ha[d] not previously obtained a determination on the merits of a Pigford claim [could], in a civil action brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, obtain that determination." Pub. L. 110-234, §14012(b), 122 Stat. 923, 1448 (2008). Civil suits brought pursuant to this legislation were later consolidated in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation ("Pigford II"), 856 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011). See 856 F. Supp. 2d at 16. On October 27, 2011, the litigants in that suit also reached a settlement. See id. at 42. Under the terms of that agreement, members of the class had until May 11, 2012 to submit their claims. See 856 F. Supp. 2d at 23.
In his Amended Complaint, Mr. Bean claims that he is entitled to relief under the 2008 Farm Bill and alleges that the "issue raised in this action has its origin in [Pigford]." Am. Compl. at 2. But even a cursory review of Mr. Bean's Amended Complaint demonstrates that there is no such nexus between the facts that Mr. Bean alleges today and the claims that were remedied in Pigford. To start, a Pigford claim depends entirely on a relationship with the USDA occurring between 1981 and 1996.3 However, Mr. Bean alleges that he did not borrow money from the USDA to purchase the land at issue until 2001. See Am. Compl. at 3-5. Furthermore, unlike Pigford, Mr. Bean attempts to allege that the USDA discriminated against him, not because of his race, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial