Lepelletier v. U.S. Department of Education

.' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT LEPELLETIER, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 09-1119 (RJL) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) EDUCATION ) ) and ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY )

Defendants. fL- MEMORANDUM ORDER (December ~, 2009) [# 7]

Now before the Court is the United States Department of Treasury's

Motion to Dismiss Lepelletier's Complaint. Lepelletier, whose Complaint seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief to settle a nearly forty-year-old student loan,

proceeds pro se and opposes the motion. After consideration of the pleadings,

applicable law, and the entire record herein, Treasury's Motion to Dismiss must be

GRANTED.

The crux of Lepelletier's suit is an old student debt which the Department

of Education claims is still outstanding. Pursuant to regular statutory procedure,

Education referred the outstanding debt to Treasury for collection. (Def. Mot. [#7]

at 1-2.) Treasury, through its Financial Management Service, operates the *2 ••

Treasury Offset Program ("TOP"), which seeks to recoup outstanding non-tax

debts like Lepelletier's by offsetting federal payments otherwise owed to the

debtor. (ld.) In this case, Lepelletier claims Treasury has offset his federal

stimulus payment and his income tax refunds in order to pay down the debt

Education has certified as still outstanding. (CompI. ~ 4.)

Lepelletier has named both the Departments of Education and Treasury as

defendants to his suit. Treasury, however, is not a proper party to the suit. When

a creditor agency, like Education in this case, refers a certified non-tax debt to

Treasury, Treasury must offset federal payments otherwise owed to the non-tax

debtor to help satisfy the outstanding debt. 31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(l)(A); see also

Johnson v. Dep't a/Treasury, 300 Fed. App'x 860,862-63 (lIth Cir. 2008) (per

curiam). Creditor agencies like Education may only certify debts that are eligible

for offset under applicable regulations, I and it is incumbent upon the creditor

agency, not Treasury, to afford the debtor due process with respect to disputing the

outstanding debt. See Johnson, 300 Fed. App'x at 862-63. Accordingly, to the

extent Lepelletier may seek to dispute his outstanding debt in court, he must

proceed against the creditor agency with whom he has a dispute - here, Education.

He cannot sustain his action against Treasury. Id.

F or all these reasons, it is hereby

I E.g., 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(d)(3). *3 ... •

ORDERED that the Department of Treasury's Motion to Dismiss [#7] is

GRANTED, and that the Department of Treasury is hereby dropped from the case.

SO ORDERED.

~ United States District Judge