Binion v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:18-CV-544-MHT-KFP |
| Parties | ROBERT BINION and COREY LEA, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Plaintiffs Robert Binion and Corey Lea, appearing pro se, bring this action against Defendants United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, alleging 13 causes of action arising from Plaintiffs' status as "socially disadvantaged farmers." Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 65) with supporting memorandum (Doc. 66), and Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. 70) with supporting memorandum (Doc. 71). Upon review of the parties' submissions and the relevant law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the motion to dismiss be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiffs initiated this action in June 2018 by filing a 14-page Initial Complaint against Defendants. Doc. 1. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend (see Doc. 18) and, in November 2018, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which consisted of 22 pages and 60 pages of exhibits. Doc. 19. Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, arguing that it was a shotgun pleading that failed to provide sufficient facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction or a viable claim for relief. Doc. 37. After Defendants filed their motion, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend (Doc. 41) and a proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 41-1), which consisted of 47 pages and nearly 100 pages of exhibits.
In an August 22, 2019 Recommendation, the Court agreed with Defendants that the First Amended Complaint met the criteria of a shotgun pleading for which Defendants were not expected to frame a responsive pleading. Doc. 46 (adopted at Doc. 49). However, the Court determined that Plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to remedy their deficient complaint.1 Thus, the Court construed Defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion for a more definite statement, which it granted, and it also granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. Id.
However, upon review of Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint, the Court determined that it also failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Specifically, the Court stated, "Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint . . . is still, largely, filled with argument and historical facts that are not appropriate or necessary in a complaint . . . ." Id. at 4. Thus, the Court directed Plaintiffs to conform each of their claims to the Federal Rules, "setting forth each claim individually, establishing that each plaintiff has standing to bring each claim, establishing jurisdiction in the Middle Districtof Alabama, the facts as alleged, and the relief/damages sought." Id. at 4-5. Finally, the Court stated:
Plaintiffs are cautioned that this is their final chance to properly articulate their claims, and their failure to remedy the defects may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ()[.] The Plaintiffs are also cautioned that any further motions for leave to amend the complaint will be denied.
Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).
After some delay, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint—the operative complaint in this action—in July 2020.2 Doc. 59.
Plaintiffs' 49-page Third Amended Complaint is largely devoid of factual allegations specific to Plaintiffs. Where such allegations exist, they are sparse and scattered amongst long historical texts, extensive case law and statutes from other jurisdictions, and references to individuals and entities that are not parties to this litigation.3 The allegations are also extraordinarily vague, as they do not explain where or when particular eventsoccurred. It is therefore difficult to discern exactly what Defendants allegedly did to Plaintiffs and what harm was allegedly caused as a result.
The Complaint alleges that both Plaintiffs are "socially disadvantaged farmers" who have longstanding pending discrimination complaints with the USDA. Doc. 59 at 8, 43. As to Binion, the Complaint merely alleges that he lives in Clanton, Alabama and that, at some unidentified time, "the ASCR invited the Black farmer to Washington to settle his [unidentified] case, along with Corey Lea" but "[t]he ASCR refused to settle their case and refused to issue a final agency decision." Id. at 9, 13. As far as the Court can tell, there are no further factual allegations specific to Binion in the Complaint. As to Lea, the Complaint alleges that he lives in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and that, at some point, Defendants failed to act on a moratorium to which he was entitled, "terminated [his] federal assistance by blocking the refinancing of [his] farmland [located in Warren County, Kentucky]," and refused to give him a hearing on the merits before an Administrative Law Judge. Id. at 9-10, 13. As a result, Lea lost his farmland. Id. at 13.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs state 13 causes of action, the majority of which relate to Lea's loss of his Kentucky farmland and several of which relate to alleged discrimination by the USDA.4 As relief, Plaintiffs seek (1) that the County CommitteeSystem be declared unlawful; (2) that the Secretary allow socially disadvantaged farmers access to an ALJ upon request; (3) that the Secretary provide discovery and a "one day mini trial" in all determinations; and (4) $3,000,000 each in monetary damages. Id. at 47-48.
Though factual context in the Third Amended Complaint is sparse and difficult to follow, Plaintiffs' prior litigation history helps shed light on this action.
Binion first filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Alabama in October 2010, alleging that the USDA denied him farm loans and discriminated against black farmers. See Binion v. Vilsack, No. 2:10cv920 (M.D. Ala.). That lawsuit was dismissed in April 2011 for failure to effect service. See id. Several years later, Binion and other pro se plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit in the Middle District against Defendants challenging decisions covered by the Pigford class action.5 See Binion v. USDA, No. 2:16cv657 (M.D. Ala.). In that lawsuit, Binion alleged that he was a prevailing Pigford class member, but the USDA nevertheless denied him loans and refused to give him a hearing on the merits before an ALJ. See id. This Court dismissed Binion's second lawsuit for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, determining that the District Court for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction over Pigford claims.6 See id., Doc. 32.
Lea has filed countless unsuccessful lawsuits against Defendants and other parties in the Western District of Kentucky, the Court of Federal Claims, the Middle District of Tennessee, the District of Columbia, and this Court relating to the same general subject matter—the loss of his Kentucky farmland. As a result of his prolific filing, both the Western District of Kentucky and the Court of Federal Claims have barred Lea from filing any further similar lawsuits. In a 2016 Order, the Court of Federal Claims summarized the basic facts giving rise to each of Lea's lawsuits:
Lea v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 203, 206-07 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Since these events, which occurred more than a decade ago, Lea has filed countless lawsuits against Defendants and others based on numerous legal theories. While the various theories presented in each suit may differ—though they do not always—the basis of each of his lawsuits appears to be the same; he believes the USDA discriminated against him and violated various laws by failing to (1) stop the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Farmers National Bank; (2) timely process his administrative discrimination complaint; and (3) give him a hearing on the merits before an ALJ. However, as discussed below, Lea's claims on this basis have been repeatedly rejected and...
To continue reading
Request your trial