Julian et al v. Rigney et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 3/24/14. (ham)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DANVILLE DIVISION CHRISTOPHER B. JULIAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES RIGNEY, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:13-cv-00054 ORDER By: Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge Plaintiffs Christopher B. Julian and Renee G. Julian (“Plaintiffs”) applied for and were denied a Farm Ownership loan through the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). As a result of the denial, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit in this Court against the USDA, seven federal employees, and one state employee. On October 18, 2013, state employee Wanda Johnson filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 16]. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on January 6, 2014 [ECF No. 27], and the remaining Federal Defendants collectively filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 14, 2014 [ECF No. 28]. On February 25, 2014, I heard oral arguments from all sides, outlining their respective positions on the facts, law, and agency record before the Court. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and arguments of counsel, the matter is now ripe for decision. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I find that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for a violation of procedural or substantive due process. The Eleventh Amendment entitles Defendant Johnson to immunity from suit for damages claims in her official capacity. Sovereign immunity entitles the USDA and individual Federal Defendants to immunity from suit for damages claims in their official capacities. Plaintiffs fail to allege that the individual Federal Defendants violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, or otherwise acted outside of the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the individual Federal Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. The request for judicial review of the final agency decision survives dismissal. Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are entitled to partial summary judgment. Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Defendant Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss, DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ request for judicial review of the final agency decision, and GRANTED with respect to all other claims against the USDA, and all claims against the following employee-defendants, in any capacity: (1) James Rigney; (2) Ronald Kraszewski; (3) J. Calvin Parrish; (4) Jerry L. King; (5) Roger Klurfeld; (6) Christopher P. Beyerhelm; and (7) Barbara McLean. The USDA remains as the sole defendant, and the suit will proceed as an action for judicial review of the final decision of USDA National Appeals Division Director Roger Klurfeld. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to Plaintiffs and all counsel of record. Entered this 24th day of March, 2014. s/Jackson L. Kiser SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?