Sibley v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., 96-1392
| Decision Date | 01 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1392,96-1392 |
| Citation | 111 F.3d 133 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. George SIBLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and KANNE and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
George Sibley, an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, defaulted on a federally-insured student loan. The Illinois State Scholarship Commission, and later the defendant United States Department of Education ("Department"), which assumed responsibility for collecting on the loan, unsuccessfully demanded payment. When the Department threatened to offset Sibley's disposable wages by fifteen percent, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5514, Sibley sought to convince the Department that such garnishment would cause him extreme hardship. The Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") ultimately ruled in favor of the Department. Sibley, acting pro se, sued, claiming that the Department had violated his rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department. We affirm.
Sibley devotes most of his argument on appeal to claims that the Department violated his due process rights. He makes much of the Department's alleged violations of its own hearing procedures. First, he notes (correctly) that the Department attempted to initiate the wage offset without first giving him a chance to show hardship. 34 C.F.R. § 31.3(a)(11). He ignores the fact that the Department subsequently stayed the offset request, and forwarded his file to a hearing officer for an independent written review on the question of hardship. The hearing officer ruled that the Department could initiate the offset, as it would not cause Sibley extreme hardship.
Upon being informed of this result, Sibley again protested, this time through a letter from an attorney from his union, the National Treasury Employees Union. The letter noted (again, correctly) that Sibley had sought only an internal hardship consideration, rather than a written hearing, 1 and that the Department had never notified Sibley of his right to an additional oral hearing before an independent official. 34 C.F.R. § 31.7. Again, the Department stayed the offset request, and formally informed Sibley of his right to an oral hearing. Sibley requested an oral hearing, but asked that it be delayed until he had also received a regional review. In an exchange of letters concerning the regional review, the Department informed Sibley that if the regional review ruled in Sibley's favor, it assumed he would not want an independent oral hearing. When Sibley indicated he would not waive his right to an oral hearing even if the regional review were in his favor, the Department apparently abandoned the regional review as pointless, and referred his case to an Administrative Law Judge at the MSPB, which handles independent oral hearings for the Department. The Department informed Sibley by letter that it was referring his case to its Office of General Counsel, but did not make clear that this was for the purpose of conducting an oral hearing, in lieu of the regional review.
Sibley first learned of the oral hearing when the ALJ sent him a letter, dated November 16, 1994, informing him that she intended to hold a telephonic hearing on December 7, apprising him of the format of the hearing and the documents required, and asking for a list of witnesses, and a telephone number where he could be reached. Sibley expressed his confusion at the fact that a hearing was being held at all, and requested a month's delay, a hearing in person rather than by telephone, as well as other information from the ALJ. He did not supply a list of witnesses, or a telephone number. The ALJ granted a five-day delay, but ruled that Sibley had not shown the need for a hearing in person. She referred Sibley to the federal regulations which governed the hearing, told him he need not re-submit documents which he had already submitted to the Department, and reminded him that evidence must be supported by documentation rather than personal assertion, but informed him he would have to decide for himself whether further documentation would be helpful to his case. Sibley flatly refused to participate in the telephonic hearing, claiming that it violated his right to a face-to-face hearing. He also asked for a different hearing officer on grounds that the ALJ's refusal to grant a one-month continuance, and give him more information...
To continue reading
Request your trial