Franklin Paulus v. US Department of Education

Ninth Circuit

Franklin Paulus v. US Department of Education

586 F. App'x 341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 2014

Docket13-15620

StatusUnpublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 341 (Franklin Paulus v. US Department of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin Paulus v. US Department of Education, 586 F. App'x 341 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

FranWin Carl Paulus appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action challenging the Department of Education’s denial of his request to discharge his federally guaranteed student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lawrence v. Dep’t of Interior, 525 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, applies to Paulus’s educational loans, and that Michigan’s statute of limitations does not apply to the Department’s debt collection efforts against Paulus. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2) (the United States may at any time bring an action for the repayment of a loan obtained under Title IV of the Higher Education Act and assigned to the Department); United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.1994) (HETA retroactively abrogated all statutes of limitations on actions to collect defaulted federally guaranteed student loans).

We do not consider Paulus’s arguments regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Tenth Amendment because they were raised for the first time on appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

FranWin Carl Paulus appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action challenging the Department of Education’s denial of his request to discharge his federally guaranteed student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lawrence v. Dep’t of Interior, 525 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, applies to Paulus’s educational loans, and that Michigan’s statute of limitations does not apply to the Department’s debt collection efforts against Paulus. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2) (the United States may at any time bring an action for the repayment of a loan obtained under Title IV of the Higher Education Act and assigned to the Department); United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.1994) (HETA retroactively abrogated all statutes of limitations on actions to collect defaulted federally guaranteed student loans).

We do not consider Paulus’s arguments regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Tenth Amendment because they were raised for the first time on appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 F. App'x 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-paulus-v-us-department-of-education-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack