DASISA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 defendant's Motion to Dismiss; denying 19 plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying 21 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 22 plaintiff's Motion for Order; d enying 24 plaintiff's Motion to Clarify; denying 27 plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment. This case is dismissed with prejudice. This constitutes a final, appealable order. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 06/26/2013. (lcrcl4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MIHRETU BULTI DASISA
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Civil No. 12-cv-1359 (RCL)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Mihretu Bulti Dasisa brings this action against defendant Department of
Defendant now moves to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and plaintiff moves for summary judgment. Upon consideration of defendant’s
motion  to dismiss the case, plaintiff’s opposition  thereto, plaintiff’s motion  for
declaratory judgment, defendant’s opposition  thereto, plaintiff’s motion  for summary
judgment and motion  for order, defendant’s opposition  to both, plaintiff’s motion 
to clarify, and plaintiff’s second motion for declaratory judgment  the Court will GRANT the
defendant’s motion to dismiss  and DENY plaintiff’s motions     .
The plaintiff alleges that DOT improperly offset a portion of his tax refund to collect a
debt wrongfully claimed by the Department of Education. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3711(g) and 3716(a)
requires DOT to make such offsets whenever an agency refers a debt to it and to pass the
withheld funds to the agency to help satisfy the debt. Agencies that refer debts to DOT certify
that the debts are valid, delinquent, and legally enforceable. 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(d)(6).
DOT moves to dismiss the case under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. It notes that 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g) explicitly strips courts of both legal and equitable
jurisdiction to challenge such debt collection practices.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
“Federal courts are tribunals of limited subject matter jurisdiction,” and can only review
matters over which Congress has explicitly granted courts jurisdiction by statute. 13 CHARLES
ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE
PROCEDURE § 3522 (4th ed.
When Congress has not granted jurisdiction, courts must dismiss the matter under
While the Administrative Procedures Act creates a general,
presumptive right to sue federal agencies, this presumption is overcome by specific statutory
language denying jurisdiction. Texas Alliance for Home Care Servs. v. Sebelius, 681 F.3d 402,
408 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Here, Congress has specifically denied federal courts jurisdiction to decide challenges to
DOT offsets of this kind. 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g) provides
No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any action, whether
legal or equitable, brought to restrain or review a reduction authorized by
subsection . . . (d) [“Collection of debts owed to Federal agencies”] . . . . No
action brought against the United States to recover the amount of any such
reduction shall be considered to be a suit for refund of tax. This subsection does
not preclude any legal, equitable, or administrative action against the Federal
agency or State to which the amount of such reduction was paid . . . .”
This statute explicitly reserves plaintiff’s ability to sue agency-claimants directly, but it prohibits
suits against DOT merely for carrying out its statutory obligation to collect debts that agencies
refer to it. Id.; Albert v. OSI Educ. Servs., 2004 WL 483166, 93 A.F.T.R.2d 2004-1508 (D.
Minn., Mar. 11, 2004). DOT is therefore the wrong defendant in this matter. To pursue this
matter, the plaintiff must sue the agency claiming his debt and not the debt collector. Therefore,
DOT’s motion to dismiss shall be granted, and the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s variously styled
motions requesting relief from DOT in this action.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ motions, oppositions, replies thereto, the record herein,
the applicable law, and for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby
ORDERS that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss  is GRANTED; the Court further
ORDERS that plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment  is DENIED; the Court
ORDERS that plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment  is DENIED; the Court
ORDERS that plaintiff’s Motion for Order  is DENIED; the Court further
ORDERS that plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify  is DENIED; the Court further
ORDERS that plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment  is DENIED.
The Court ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final, appealable order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on June 26, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?