Burrus v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. Forest Serv.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-00845-KJM-JDP (PS) |
| Parties | JOYCE M. BURRUS, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) FOREST SERVICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Plaintiff Joyce M. Burrus brought this action against her former employer, the U.S. Forest Service (“Forest Service”), and various individual defendants, in connection with disputes relating to her health benefits and to three debts assessed by the Forest Service for salary overpayments and unpaid healthcare premiums. Plaintiff seeks relief under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act the Declaratory Judgments Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and various federal regulations. No individual defendants have appeared. Defendant Forest Service now moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. I recommend that the court dismiss the case in its entirety because the court lacks jurisdiction over her claims relating to decisions over her benefits and pay, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing her claims for access to records, and the remaining claims fail to state a claim.
Plaintiff is a former federal employee with over thirty years of employment at the Forest Service, a component of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). ECF No. 1 at 4. Beginning in 2012, she took a series of extended leaves of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, and under the Forest Service's Voluntary Leave Transfer Program (“VLTP”), to care for her husband, who was undergoing treatment for cancer. Id. at 4-6. The VLTP permits the transfer of “unused accrued annual leave of one agency officer or employee . . . for use by another agency officer or employee who needs such leave because of a medical emergency.” 5 C.F.R. § 630.901. When an employee exhausts all leave options and enters unpaid leave status, he or she may choose to continue certain benefits; to do this, the employee must either pay his or her premiums or incur a debt to the agency. Id. at § 890.502(b).
In June 2016, plaintiff used the last of her leave donations under the VLTP and entered leave without pay status. ECF No. 1-2 at 1; ECF No. 1-4 at 45. Shortly thereafter, she elected to continue her Federal Employee Health Benefits (“FEHB”) coverage without paying premiums; as a result, between June 2016 and March 2018, she incurred a debt of $18,377. See ECF No. 1-2 at 4; ECF No. 1-4 at 45. She disputes this debt, claiming that because defendants terminated her healthcare benefits without adequate notice in May 2017, she was improperly charged for at least a portion of the premiums.[1] ECF No. 1 at 17.
Plaintiff also challenges two debts for overpayment of salary in the amounts of $5,672 and $1,791. ECF No. 1 at 4. A letter from a Forest Service representative indicates that plaintiff received new leave donations at the end of 2016; when pay staff “rushed to process the corrected timesheets” to reflect the additional leave, plaintiff “was paid twice for four pay periods in 2016,” causing her to incur the first overpayment debt of $5,672. ECF No. 1-4 at 45. Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the accuracy of the overpayment amount, but she objects to the lack of a hearing and complains that defendants failed to provide her with information and records justifying their recoupment of the overpayment. ECF No. 1 at 7 & 20-21. Plaintiff learned of the second salaryoverpayment debt, for $1,791, in February 2019, when defendant Lawson informed her that the Forest Service had erroneously paid her during the 2018-19 government shutdown. Id. at 11 & 23. She alleges that she “did not receive [the] alleged salary overpayment” because it was issued to a bank account that had been closed. Id. at 23.
Plaintiff brings six claims under: the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”); the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654; and several federal regulations. She challenges three debts and the termination of her healthcare benefits, and she makes claims relating to the provision and accuracy of certain information.[2]
Throughout the complaint, plaintiff broadly alleges that defendants violated her rights under FOIA and the Privacy Act, for example by failing “to provide [her] with the information the Agency relied upon to cancel her health benefits and that support the Agency's assertions of alleged debts to the government.” Id. at 29. In addition to seeking records and other information, she asks that the court: expunge or amend any “inaccurate and/or derogatory” records, award her damages, and cancel any erroneous debts to the Forest Service. Id. at 31. She identifies an October 2018 letter to the USDA Forest Service Director, Ted Gutman, as a request for information and assistance, and in her opposition she argues that a portion of this letter constitutes a proper request for records under FOIA. ECF No. 1 at 10; ECF No. 1-3 at 65.[3] The letter states in its first paragraph that “[t]his is a formal request for assistance in the reinstatement of my health benefits and verification of the validity of debts owed to the government (salary overpayment in the amount of $5,672.55 and $19,000 [in] health benefits).” ECF No. 1-3 at 62. The portion requesting access to documents, which appears on page four of six, reads:
Provided below is a request for information; I am requesting that the Agency provide an explanation as to the authorities that permitted the action/inactions taken against me while I was an approved participant in the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program. Additionally, please provide the Agency's supporting documentation (to include but not limited to reports such as Time and Attendance (T&A) reports, NFC generated reports, etc., and/or directives) that was relied upon to support the adverse actions taken against me and what corrective action(s), if applicable, the Agency plans to take.
Defendant Forest Service moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 28. The Forest Service argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claims challenging the fact or amount of any debts related to plaintiff's pay or benefits because they are preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). ECF No. 28-1 at 8. Separately, the Forest Service argues that because plaintiff “requested correction not of an error of fact, but of an error of judgment[,]” she has failed to state a claim under the record-amendment provisions of the Privacy Act. Id. at 6 (quoting Blevins v. Plummer, 613 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1980)). The Forest Service further argues that because the it has cancelled the $1,791 debt for salary overpayment and a portion of the $18,377 healthcare premium debt, claims arising from those debts should be dismissed as moot under Rule 12(b)(1). Id. at 9. In support of this mootness argument, the Forest Service introduces a declaration from Jennifer Thomas, “Branch Supervisor, Human Resources, Pay and Leave,” attesting to the current status of each debt. ECF No. 28-3 at 2. Finally, the Forest Service argues that plaintiff's October 2018 letter was not a proper FOIA or Privacy Act request, and that plaintiff therefore failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. ECF No. 28-1 at 5-7.
A complaint may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
For purposes of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court generally considers only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice, and construes all well-pleaded material factual allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys.Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on either: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 710 F.3d at 956. Dismissal also is appropriate if the complaint alleges a fact that necessarily defeats the claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984).
A jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial challenge, the moving party asserts that the allegations in the complaint are “insufficient on their face” to establish federal jurisdiction. Id. “Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists therefore does not depend on resolution of a factual dispute, but rather on the allegations in [the] complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial