Johnson v. Duncan et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/23/2018. (c/m 5/24/2018 heps, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
So11them Divisio/l

.JOSEPH .JOHNSON, .JR.

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

Case No.: G.JH-15-1820

*
BETSY DEVOS, SECRETARY
U.S. DEP'T OF EDUe., et al.,

*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*
*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
In this case, Plaintiff Joseph Johnson,
quest (undeterred

*

*

*

by lack of success at each instance) to avoid paying student loans that he took
with these loans:' Johnson v.

b?fiJ. So/s .. Inc .. No. PWG-15-558.

(~frd, 70
6

F. App.x 778 (4th Cir. 2016). sued the United States Department

Secretary

orthe

Department
Complaint,

of Education.2
reasoning

2015 WL 7769502.

On February

1,2017,

at *1 (D. Md. Nov. 17.2015).
of Education

the Court dismissed

Order and for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
Complaint.

PlaintitT's

2017 WL 462049 (D. Md. Feb. 1,

27. 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Clarify Memorandum

Second Amended

and the

that P.laintiff's claims were barred under the doctrine of

estoppel. Johnson v. Duncan, No. GJH-15-1820.

2017). On February

proposed

*

Jr.,1 "a serial litigator who is on a decade-long

Experian

collateral

*

OPINION

out from 1993 to 1996 and to sue various parties associated

First Amended

*

ECF NO.5!.

Opinion and

Plainti 1'1'
attached to this Motion a

ECF No. 51-1. The Court denied Plainti/Ts

Motion on

I Although
he was originally represented by counsel, on November 3.2017, the Court granted a motion for
Johnson's attorneys to withdraw from this case. and he is now representing himself. ECF No. 67.
2 Arne Duncan was originally
the named defendant in this case. Betsy DeVos was confirmed as the eleventh
Secretary of Education on February 7, 2017 and was substituted for former Secretary of Education. Arne Duncan
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

11,2017, holding that (l) amendment

August

Defendants;

(2) the proposed

be futile as the Department

amendment
of Education

claims in the Second Amended

Complaint,

of the Complaint

Plaintifflatched

had not waived sovereign
thus depriving

onto the third argument

sovereign

immunity,

Judgment

from the Court's

and on October 2,2017,
dismissal

to

was made in bad faith; and (3) the amendment
immunity

would

with respect to the

the COUl1 of subject matter

2017 WL 3475668 (D. Md. Aug. 11,2017).3

Johnson v. Devos, No. GJH-15-1820,

jurisdiction.

would be prejudicial

of the Court's

Memorandum

tiled the now-pending

of the First Amended

Opinion regarding

Motion for Relief from

Complaint,

pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure

Rule 60(b), arguing that the Court never had subject matter jurisdiction

his First Amended

Complaint.

ECF No. 61. As sovereign

Plaintiff argued, the Court should not have dismissed
of collateral

estoppel,

but should have dismissed

immunity

Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following

had not been waived,

his First Amended

Complaint

the case on the grounds of sovereign

The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court determines

for reasons
immunity.4

that a hearing is not necessary.

reasons, Defendant's

over

See

Motion for Relief is

denied.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

final judgment
judgment

if"the judgment

lacked jurisdiction

Rule 60(b)(4),

is void"- "A judgment

a court may relieve a party from a

is void only if the court that rendered

over the subject matter or the paI1ies or in circumstances

in which

A fier filing his pending Motion, on October 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court. stating that
he would appeal ECF No. 50 and ECF No. 57, along with "all other final orders." ECF No. 62. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Foul1h Circuit is currently holding Plaintiffs appeal in abeyance pending the Court's
disposition of Plaintiffs pending Motion. ECF No. 68.
4 It is unclear
what Plaintiff stands to gain from voiding the initial decision. If the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion. it
would vacate its prior decision but still dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction; either way, Plaintiffs suit will be dismissed. Presumably, Plaintiff does not want an opinion on the
record declaring that new claims brought by him are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. However. even if
the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion, the Court's initial decision would remain on the record and could be cited to as
persuasive authority by future defendants.
J

2

the court's action amounts

to a violation

While this Rule is "seemingly

broad," the Fourth Circuit has "narrowly

order under Rule 60(b)(4)."

jurisdiction."
822,825

(4th Cir. 2017).

comment

that "a

is almost never void because of lack of federal subject matter

as void only if the jurisdictional

Wells Fargo Bank. N.A. v. AMH Roman Two Ne. LLC, 859 F.3d 295, 302

"Thus, when deciding whether an order is 'void'

subject matter jurisdiction,

under Rule 60(b)(4)

courts must look for the 'rare instance of a clear usurpation

Wendt, 43 I F.3d at 4 13. A court plainly usurps jurisdiction

want of jurisdiction'

Id. "An error in interpreting

Typically,

for lack of
of

"only when there is a 'total

and no arguable basis on which it could have rested a finding that it had

acting with total want of jurisdiction."

a statutory

grant of jurisdiction

Id. (internal quotations

"an appeal divests a trial court of jurisdiction

in the appeal."

(internal

citation and quotation

marks omitted).

over matters in aid of the appeaL" including
citation and quotation

district court determines

is not equivalent

to

and brackets omitted).
over those aspects of the case

Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 890 (4th Cir. 1999)

involved

(internal

to the Eighth Circuit's

n. 5 (8th Cir. 1980)). A court will treat the judgment

jurisdiction."

the concept

Id. at 413 (citing Kansas CityS. Ry. Co. v. Creat Lakes Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d

error is "egregious."

power.'"

construe[d]

Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412 (4th Cir. 2005).

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has pointed approvingly
federal court judgment

Choice Hotels Int'l. Inc. v. Bonham.

(citing Schwartz v. United States. 976 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1992)).

125 F.3d 847 (4th Cir.1997)

ofa 'void'

of due process."

However,

the district court "retains jurisdiction

motions for reconsideration

marks omitted).

The Fourth Circuit has instructed

that the motion is merit less, as experience

case, the court should deny the motion forthwith;
with the appeal from the underlying

under Rule 60. Id.

demonstrates

that "[i]fthe
is often the

any appeal from the denial can be consolidated

order." Id. at 891.

3

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that consistent with the Court's denial of his Motion for Leave to Amend
the Complaint,
Complaint,

the Court never had subject matter jurisdiction

over the First Amended

and the Court should declare its initial Order and Memorandum

dismiss instead for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
that only PlaintifT's First Amended Complaint

Id. at 7.5 In response,

Opinion void and
Defendants

argue

included various provisions of the Higher

Education Act of I 965 ("I-lEA"), and the HEA includes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity
"which is a broad enough wavier [sic] of the Depm1ment of Education's
Court to exercise jurisdiction

over Plaintiff's

common law contract

claims in Counts I-IV of his First Amended Complaint,"
from being awarded against Defendants.6

immunity to allow the

quasi-contract,

and equitable

but which precludes injunctive relief

ECF No. 65 at 6.

The Court need not determine whether or not the HEA's "sue or be sued" waiver was
broad enough to cover the claims in Plaintiffs
determine

whether the Court made an "egregious"

dismiss the First Amended Complaint
for the purpose of considering
jurisdiction

First Amended Complaint;
jurisdictional

error in failing to sua sponte

on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Court assumes

Plaintiff's

Motion that the Court did not have subject matter

over the First Amended Complaint;

finds that it did not make an "egregious"

still, the Court denies Plaintiff's

jurisdictional

Motion and

error.

The issue of sovereign immunity barring the claims in PlaintiiTs
Complaint

the COUI1need only

was not raised by the parties at any point prior to Plaintiffs

First Amended
now-pending

Motion. In

fact, up to this point both parties had argued that this Court had subject matter jurisdiction,

and

Pin cites to documents filed on the Court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated
by that system.
620 U.s.c. ~ 1082(a)(2) provides that the Secretary may "sue or be sued" in federal district cOUl1 regarding "the
performance of. and with respect to. the functions. powers. and duties vested in him:' excluding any claim for an
"injunction."
5

4

that sovereign immunity had been waived. See ECF No. I 0 ~ 4; ECF No. 54 at 7. While the
Court must raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction
jurisdiction,

sua sponte ifit does not have

Brickwood Contractors. Inc. v. Datanet En~ineering. Inc.. 369 F.3d 385. 390 (4th

Cir. 2004), the fact that the issue was not raised by either party is relevant to a determination

of

whether the Court's error was "egregious."
Additionally,

this is not a case where the Court acted on a claim that clearly fell outside

of its federal question or diversity jurisdictions.
normally have subject matter jurisdiction
Complaint

Here, neither party disputes that the Court would

over the types of claims in the First Amended

were they brought against a private party, given the federal questions raised therein.

See. e.g., ECF No. 10 at II. Instead. Plaintiff argues that Defendants could not be sued, because
there was no "unequivocal
encompassed
concludes

waiver of sovereign immunity for the federal government"

the claims contained in the First Amended Complaint.

which

ECF No. 61 at 6. The Court

that any error in failing to dismiss the First Amended Complaint because of sovereign

immunity, when that issue had not been raised by either party, was not an "egregious"
was, at worst. an "error in interpreting

a statutory grant of jurisdiction."

This did not constitute a "clear" and "egregious"

"usurpation

error, but

Wendt. 431 F.3d at 413.

of power." id.. and the Court's

prior Order is not void.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintitrs

Motion for Relief from Judgment,

ECF No. 61, is

denied. A separate Order shall issue.

Date: May,

V> .

/kit--

2018

kAZEL

GEORGE J.
United States District Judge

5