Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03253/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03253-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3253 

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kathy D. Massey, *

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 2004

Filed: August 25, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, and BYE, Circuit Judge, and MAGNUSON,1

 District

Judge.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Kathy D. Massey was removed for misconduct from her position as a Program

Technician (PT) by the Jackson County (Arkansas) Executive Director of the United

States Department of Agriculture and its Farm Service Agency (FSA; agency). After

exhausting her administrative appeals, Massey brought an action in the district court

under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), claiming the decision to terminate

her was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, violated her Fifth

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
2

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

3

Farm reconstitutions are authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 1379 and are permitted

when ownership of a farm changes. A reconstitution is "a change in the land

constituting a farm as the result of combination or division." Vanderford v. Penix,

39 F.3d 209, n.2 (8th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

-2-

Amendment rights, and was not based on substantial evidence. The district court2

granted summary judgment to the government, affirming the decision of the

Executive Director for State Operations (EDSO). We affirm.

I

A. Factual Background

Massey was employed for fourteen years as a PT in the Jackson County FSA

Office in Newport, Arkansas. She was in charge of reconstitutions3 and compliance

programs. A county FSA office is run by a County Executive Director (CED), and

the CED of the Jackson County FSA office was Floyd Campbell. The CED answers

to a County Committee (COC) composed of farmers elected to serve from the local

area. The COC answers to the Arkansas FSA State Committee (STC), composed of

the State Executive Director and Arkansas farmers appointed by the Secretary of

Agriculture. Disciplinary decisions concerning county employees are made by the

STC. The State Executive Director is in charge of overall program implementation

and direction. There is a District Director for each district who is responsible for the

oversight of several county offices. During the time relevant to this case, Gary Roger

Davis was the District Director overseeing Jackson County. Typically, a district

director visits the county offices once a month.

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
4

CABs are part of the reconstitution process. A farm's crop acreage base "in

a particular program crop [such as wheat] represents the farm's average historic yield

of that crop." Vanderford, 39 F.3d at n.5.

-3-

In 1997, the Jackson County FSA Office came under investigation following

concerns about allegations of farm program irregularities and conflicts of interest.

Following initial conflicting reports, the Office of the Inspector General conducted

an audit of the Jackson County FSA Office. Nathan Moore, an expert in

reconstitutions, was one of the members of the audit team in charge of auditing the

reconstitutions for the Jackson County Office for the time period of 1992 to 1998.

The audit team discovered problems with reconstitutions, prevented planting, and

ghost acres. It issued a report known as the "Jackson County Special Report," which

formed the basis for the agency's disciplinary actions against Massey, CED Floyd

Campbell, and another PT, Brenda Dawson. 

The Special Report alleged that, inter alia, CED Campbell failed to disclose his

financial interests in a farming operation in Jackson County, which presented a

conflict of interest. The Special Report alleged five Jackson County FSA

reconstitutions allowed producers to use the farm division and combination process

to improperly build rice crop acreage bases (CAB)4

 and thereby improperly receive

government program payments for which the producers were not eligible. Ninety-six

percent of the problems with the reconstitutions involved one Jackson County family

farming operation, the John Conner family. CED Campbell was involved with his

son in a farming operation which had business dealings with John Conner. Nathan

Moore estimated these problems cost the government more than five million dollars.

It is undisputed Massey performed the reconstitutions in question. 

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
5

The agency also took disciplinary action against CED Floyd Campbell and PT

Brenda Dawson on the basis of the Jackson County Special Report. Campbell was

terminated and Dawson was suspended and moved. Neither is a party to this appeal.

-4-

B. Procedural Background

The STC sent a letter to Massey notifying her she was suspended without pay

pending removal for conduct issues and numerous program deficiencies.5

 Massey's

suspension letter provided two reasons for the STC's decision. The first reason stated

she failed to properly perform the duties of her position as to reconstitution. The first

specification under this reason stated from 1992 through 1995 Massey allowed

producers to use the reconstitution process to build CAB and at the same time

participate in the Acreage Reduction Program. The second specification under this

reason stated from 1993 through 1995 Massey incorrectly loaded acreage reports

regarding rice planted behind failed or prevented planted wheat acreage, as the rice

should have been coded as "ghost acres" not to receive disaster payments and planted

and considered planted acreage to build a rice CAB.

Reason two of Massey's suspension letter stated she had impeded the

effectiveness of FSA operations. The first specification under this reason stated as

a PT, she failed to effectively manage the programs for which she was directly

responsible, resulting in overpayments of government monies and expenditures of

numerous staff resources to correct these program deficiencies. The second

specification under this reason stated as a PT, Massey, inter alia, improperly executed

program documents, allowing the disbursement of government funds by permitting

producers to use the reconstitution process to build rice CAB. 

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
6

When an FSA county employee is removed for misconduct, the relevant

procedures to be followed are set forth in the FSA regulations at 7 C.F.R. §§ 7.28-33

and 22-PM ASCS (FSA) Handbook Part 10, ¶ 4, or the County Office Personnel

Manual. 

-5-

Following a non-adversarial proceeding, the STC concluded Massey did not

provide sufficient responses to the charges and she was terminated.6

 Massey

appealed the STC's decision to the EDSO. Hearing Officer John Chott conducted a

comprehensive five-day hearing. He recommended the second specifications of the

charges involving her work on the Disaster, Acreage Reduction Program and

Production Planning Contract programs not be sustained, concluding Massey neither

improperly loaded acreage reports on the system, nor improperly accepted incorrect

acreage reports or processed documents which allowed producers to collect benefits

to which they were not entitled. The hearing officer did, however, sustain

specification one of charge one and specification one of charge two concerning

Massey's work on reconstitutions.

The EDSO adopted Chott's decision, and this determination is a final

administrative decision. See 7 C.F.R. § 7.30. Massey then filed suit in the district

court for judicial review of the agency's decision. The district court affirmed and this

appeal followed.

II

When reviewing the district court's opinion upholding the administrative

agency's decision, this court must render an independent decision on the basis of the

same administrative record as that before the district court. Moore v. Custis, 736 F.2d

1260, 1262 (8th Cir. 1984). This court should hold unlawful and set aside agency

action if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to constitutional

right, or without observance of procedure required by law. Id. This standard of

review is a narrow one and the court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
-6-

that of the agency. Sierra Club v. Davies, 955 F.2d 1188, 1992-93 (8th Cir. 1992).

The appellant bears the burden of proving the agency's action was abitrary and

capricious. Id. at 1264.

Massey first contends the STC did not consider all relevant factors and relied

on false information, and requests this court remand the case back to the STC for

additional investigation. Specifically, Massey contends the STC was unaware

someone else was changing the contribution percentages in the farm-record history

which then contributed to the reconstitution problem. Significantly, however, Massey

does not cite to any proof the STC was unaware other employees had access to the

computer system. For example, as to one of the reconstitutions in question, A20116,

the hearing officer expressly found although Massey was not in the office when three

of the CABs resulting from the reconstitution were altered, Massey was in the office

when the improper processing of the reconstitution was done in May 1992. We find

Massey has produced no evidence which would call this conclusion into question, and

therefore find no basis for remand on this issue.

Massey's attempts to refer to alleged errors regarding charges that were not

sustained by the hearing officer are similarly unavailing, as this appeal only concerns

the charges sustained by the hearing officer.

Massey also contends the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious because

it failed to consider the allegations made against her involved actions or policies

which had been approved, reviewed, and rejected by higher agency authority. The

bulk of Massey's citations from the hearing transcript in support of her argument

concern the issue of whether rice planted later than wheat is a normal farm practice

in Jackson County. Again, this issue is irrelevant to the questions before this court

as the charges against Massey on this issue were not sustained.

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
-7-

Significantly, Massey does not dispute she worked on all five of the questioned

reconstitutions. And while it is true the reconstitutions were approved by her

superiors, the STC had knowledge of this approval, and the CED in Jackson County

Floyd Campbell (Massey's supervisor) was also terminated for improper conduct.

Also, District Director Gary Roger Davis had only limited contact with the Jackson

County FSA (performing "spot checks" during a monthly visit to ascertain how the

programs are being administered overall). Therefore, we find unpersuasive Massey's

contention she should be absolved of responsibility for the improper reconstitutions

and their results based on Davis's supervisory role. In sum, although we suspect

Massey may have found herself in an unfortunate circumstance, she has not presented

sufficient evidence to indicate she was merely a scapegoat.

Massey further contends she has a "reasonable expectation of continued

employment" creating a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unlike employees covered by

the Civil Service Reform Act, however, county employees serve at the pleasure of the

county executive director. Buchholz v. Aldaya, 210 F.3d 862, 864 (8th Cir. 2000)

(concluding a county employee from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service had no protected interest in her employment and therefore no due process

claim). 

Massey argues the existence of her property interest is demonstrated by the

agency's rules or regulations concerning discharge by the agency itself. In Bucholz,

this court rejected a similar argument, concluding the agency's procedural

requirements which allowed an employee the right to an informal hearing and review

by the Area Director did not confer a property interest for due process purposes and

were consistent with the declaration that county employees work at the pleasure of

the County Director. Bucholz, 210 F.3d at 867.

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264 
-8-

Additional discussion of Massey's remaining claims would serve no useful

purpose, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

III

We affirm the agency's decision to terminate Massey.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3253 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/25/2004 Entry ID: 1803264