Johnson v. Department of Agriculture
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15157
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Curtis Johnson, an African American farmer and member of the Pigford class, sought debt-settlement relief from USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) after drought-related loan defaults; FSA denied multiple settlement offers and collected funds via administrative offsets.
- In 2010 Johnson filed an administrative discrimination complaint with the USDA Office of Adjudication & Compliance (OASCR) under the USDA’s Part 15d internal procedures alleging racial discrimination; OASCR treated it as an ECOA-related complaint.
- OASCR investigated, issued a Final Agency Determination in 2012 finding failures in FSA practices, ordered debt cancellation, $30,000 damages, and remedial measures; it did not require refunding amounts already collected by offset.
- Johnson then sued in federal court under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy, and Bivens (Fifth Amendment) and Thirteenth Amendment claims against USDA officials (individual and official capacities).
- The district court dismissed all claims: ECOA claims as precluded by the Part 15d process (and against some defendants for not being “creditors”); conspiracy claims under intracorporate doctrine; Bivens and other constitutional claims on remedial-scheme/capability grounds; some defendants dismissed for lack of service or personal involvement.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed some dismissals but reversed others: it held that Part 15d proceedings are too procedurally limited to have res judicata effect on ECOA suits and that Bivens claims were not barred by Part 15d because Part 15d is a regulatory, not congressional, remedial scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Part 15d administrative proceedings preclude ECOA claims in federal court | Johnson: Part 15d decision should not bar court suit; alternatively, he challenged adequacy if treated as preclusive | USDA: Final Part 15d agency determination should have preclusive effect (res judicata) | Part 15d lacks sufficient adjudicative procedures and judicial-review safeguards; no claim preclusion (reversed as to preclusion) |
| Whether complaint sufficiently alleges individual defendants are “creditors” under ECOA | Johnson: Farm Loan managers/officers who denied settlements are creditors | Defendants: Some individuals (e.g., NAD officials) are not creditors | Court: Plausible that loan officers/managers who denied settlements are creditors; reversed dismissal as to those defendants; affirmed dismissal as to NAD officials |
| Whether § 1985(3) conspiracy claim survives where conspirators are co-employees | Johnson: USDA employees conspired to deny rights | Defendants: Intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine bars § 1985 claims among government employees | Dismissal affirmed; intracorporate doctrine applies |
| Whether Bivens (Fifth Amendment) claims are barred because Part 15d provides adequate remedial scheme | Johnson: Bivens relief available because Part 15d is insufficient and regulatory | Defendants: Part 15d supplies an adequate remedy, so Bivens is precluded | Part 15d is a regulatory creation, not a congressional remedial scheme; Bivens claims not precluded (reversed dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for adjudicating employment discrimination claims)
- Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986) (res judicata may apply when an agency acts in a judicial capacity)
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (adequacy of agency procedures affects preclusion)
- Reed v. AMAX Coal Co., 971 F.2d 1295 (7th Cir. 1992) (list of safeguards an agency must provide to act in a judicial capacity)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (creates a cause of action for constitutional violations by federal agents)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (congressional remedial schemes may preclude Bivens where Congress provided adequate remedies)
- Krueger v. Lyng, 927 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1991) (regulatory remedial schemes do not necessarily preclude Bivens)
- Garcia v. Vilsack, 563 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (distinguishing Part 15d from statutory remedial schemes and discussing availability of other review paths)