Johnson v. USDA, No. 15-1796 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the USDA and others, claiming that defendants violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., because they denied his debt settlement offers on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his being a member of the Pigford class-action litigation. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants engaged in a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) to interfere with his civil rights, and that they violated his rights under the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims. The court held that a final agency decision by the USDA resolving a complaint under 7 C.F.R. Pt. 15d using the administrative procedures currently in effect does not result in claim preclusion. In this case, the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to state a plausible claim that Thomas Brown and M. Terry Johnson, both of whom are employed with the USDA’s National Appeals Division, are creditors for ECOA purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the ECOA claims with respect to Thomas Brown and M. Terry Johnson, and reversed the dismissal of these claims with respect to the remaining defendants. The court also concluded that plaintiff's conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) were properly dismissed pursuant to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. Finally, the court reversed the dismissal of the Bivens claims because, when a remedial scheme is created entirely by regulation, it does not preclude a Bivens claim.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Gruender, Circuit Judge, and Ericksen, District Judge] Civil case - Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In action alleging the USDA discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race in administering its loan programs, plaintiff's claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act were not precluded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' final decision on his complaint as the USDA's procedures under 7 C.F.R. Pt. 15d are too barebones to bar future federal court litigation; plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to state a claim against agency employees who met the relevant definition of creditor; two employees of the USDA's National Appeals Division did not meet the definition and they were properly dismissed; plaintiff's conspiracy claims were properly dismissed under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine; when a remedial scheme is entirely created by regulation, it does not preclude a Bivens claim, and the court erred in dismissing this claim. Reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.