Johnson v. Perdue, No. 15-3962 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an African American farmer, filed suit against the USDA and others, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy regarding his loan applications, servicing requests, and the application of administrative offsets to collect on a defaulted loan. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's conclusions that plaintiff's Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights could not bar subsequent federal litigation; the individual defendants have not demonstrated that plaintiff failed to state an ECOA claim against them where the complaint included sufficient allegations from which one could plausibly infer that the individual defendants qualified as creditors under the ECOA; the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's Bivens claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities because his constitutional claims were not barred by a comprehensive remedial scheme; and plaintiff failed to state a claim for conspiracy against the individual defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Sippel, District Judge] Civil case - Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Plaintiff's Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims against the Secretary of Agriculture and USDA employees were not barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel as this circuit has held that a final decision by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights could not bar subsequent federal litigation - see Johnson v. Vilsack, 833 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2016); because the issue is fully briefed and addresses a pure question of law, the court will consider the individual defendants' claims that plaintiff failed to properly plead a Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim even though the district court did not reach the issue because of its ruling that the claim was barred; plaintiff stated a claim against the individual defendants; the remedial scheme created by the USDA regulations did not preclude a Bivens claim against the individual defendants; plaintiff failed to adequately plead a conspiracy and dismissal of that claim is affirmed; remanded for further proceedings on the Bivens claim and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims.
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.