Peamon v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: July 25, 2023
• Docket: 23-1029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-1029 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICHARD PEAMON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2023-1029 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22-cv-00417-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. ______________________

Decided: July 25, 2023 ______________________

RICHARD PEAMON, Baltimore, MD, pro se.

BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-1029 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 07/25/2023

PER CURIAM. Richard Peamon appeals a decision of the Court of Fed- eral Claims dismissing his case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following rea- sons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Peamon is a United States Army veteran who be- gan receiving Social Security disability benefits in 1995. Recently, Mr. Peamon sought medical treatment from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which resulted in an unpaid bill. In November 2021, the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) notified Mr. Peamon of his debt to the VHA and indicated that up to 15 percent of his monthly Social Security benefit would be withheld until the debt was resolved. S. Appx. 16. 1 The following month, the Fiscal Service began to withhold a portion of Mr. Peamon’s benefit. Id. at 21, 24, 28. On April 4, 2022, Mr. Peamon filed a complaint in the Court of Fed- eral Claims seeking an injunction to halt future withhold- ings and requesting associated damages, interest, and costs. Id. at 10–12. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Peamon’s complaint for failure to state a claim, id. at 5–9, and denied his motion for reconsideration. Id. at 2–4. Mr. Peamon appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION We review de novo whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wheeler v. United States, 11 F.3d 156, 158 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To survive a motion to

1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at- tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief, ECF No. 19. Case: 23-1029 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 07/25/2023

PEAMON v. US 3

dismiss, the complaint must plausibly allege facts, when accepted as true, suggesting the plaintiff is entitled to re- lief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plead- ings made by pro se litigants are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Er- ickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A complaint filed pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The Court of Federal Claims liberally construed Mr. Peamon’s complaint as alleging an illegal exaction claim. S. Appx. 6–7. To maintain a claim for illegal exaction, Mr. Peamon was required to plead sufficient facts to show the money was “‘improperly exacted or retained’ by the govern- ment.” Casa de Cambio Comdiv S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 291 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 401 (1976)). Mr. Peamon does not contest the validity of his debt owed to the VHA, and thus the Court of Federal Claims properly assumed the debt was valid. S. Appx. 8; see generally id. at 10–12. The existence of Mr. Peamon’s valid debt to a government agency, the VHA, means the garnishment of his Social Security benefit payments is not an illegal exac- tion. See Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572–74 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that plaintiff must establish the exaction was contrary to law); see also Gulley v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 405, 420–21 (Fed. Cl. 2020) (same). Mr. Peamon’s complaint, even under a lib- eral construction, does not allege sufficient facts to plausi- bly state a claim for relief. We therefore affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.