Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00247/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas R. Bearden
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

THOMAS R. BEARDEN, 

 Defendants

1:05-CV-00247 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO VACATE STAY 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff the United States of America moves to vacate the 

interim stay which the court imposed on proceedings to allow

Defendant Thomas R. Bearden to pursue an administrative appeal. 

 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 18, 2005. 

Defendant answered on May 2. The court entered its scheduling

order on June 3, 2005, wherein it imposed an interim stay on

proceedings pending Defendant’s pursuit of an administrative

appeal with the United States Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS). On October 17, Plaintiff filed the instant

Case 1:05-cv-00247-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

motion. Defendant’s counsel filed her statement of nonopposition to the instant motion on October 19. 

III. BACKGROUND

Defendant applied for and was granted one or more Health

Education Assistance Loans (HEAL) under Title VII, Part C,

subpart 1 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 294. As

part of the application process, Defendant executed promissory

notes for the loans. Demand was later made upon Defendant to

repay notes and the unpaid balances under those notes. To date,

Defendant has not made full repayment, and Plaintiff has made

demand upon Defendant for the unpaid principal, accrued interest,

late charges, and collection costs. 

Defendant denies that he is obligated to repay the alleged

student loan debt because he is entitled to a discharge of said

debt due to his permanent and total disability. Thus, both the

amount of the alleged debt, and whether Plaintiff is entitled to

it and the amount of any interest, late charges, and collection

costs, are controverted. Defendant further claims that the

government’s debt collection practices, including the imposition

of late charges and collection costs, violate provisions of the

United States Constitution. 

In the Answer to Complaint, filed on May 2, 2005, Defendant

asserted as his second affirmative defense that:

[D]efendant is entitled to a dismissal or a stay of

this action, because further administrative review of

[D]efendant’s request for a disability discharge of the

alleged student loan debt is pending with the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. 

Case 1:05-cv-00247-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Doc. 8, Ans. to Compl., ¶ 8. 

Accordingly, the Scheduling Order issued June 3, 2005,

provided that:

Defendant shall have 90 days through and including

September 5, 2005, to initiate any request for review

of the administrative decisions at dispute in this

case. Thereafter, the stay shall remain in effect an

additional 120 days through January 2, 2006, to permit

the administrative review to be completed. 

Doc. 11, Sched. Order at 5. 

Plaintiff moves to vacate the stay on the grounds that

Defendant has not pursued the administrative appeal contemplated

by the Scheduling Order. Doc. 13, Mot. to Vacate at 2. Together

with the motion, Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of

Bobbie J. Montoya, which states: (1) on information and belief,

that her legal secretary contacted the appropriate office of HHS

on September 12, 2005, and was informed that HHS had no record of

any request for reconsideration of Defendant’s disability claim;

(2) that, on September 13, 2005, she asked opposing counsel to

determine whether a request for reconsideration had been timely

submitted to HHS; and (3) that as of October 14, 2005, she had

received no response to his request from opposing counsel. Doc.

14, Montoya Decl., ¶¶ 4-7. 

Defendant’s counsel does not oppose the motion. Doc. 19,

Statement of Non-Opp. at 1. Defendant’s counsel notes that her

motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant is pending, however,

and that counsel’s lack of opposition to the motion may not be

consistent with her client’s position. Defendant’s counsel

Case 1:05-cv-00247-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

states that she informed Defendant of the motion to vacate by

sending a copy of the motion to him via certified mail. Id. at

1-2.

Although the interim stay was to give Defendant the

opportunity to appeal the denial of his request for a disability

discharge of his student loan debt, Defendant has not availed

himself of the opportunity. Dr. Kristin Hubbard, Defendant’s

psychologist, opines that Defendant suffers from severe Major

Depressive Disorder. Doc. 15, Mot. to Withdraw at 4-5. Even if

this accounts for Defendant’s failure to effect his appeal before

the scheduling order’s September 5 deadline, the case cannot

remain hostage to a litigant’s inability to conduct his defense

unless a personal representative needs to be appointed due to

lack of capacity.

 The record does not reflect whether Defendant’s appeal is

now time-barred for failure to meet any administrative deadline

set by HHS. Defendant’s delay itself is inherently prejudicial. 

Defendant shall be given twenty days following the entry of this

order to initiate any administrative appeal, and shall file

written evidence of the appeal with the court within that twentyday period. If Defendant does not do so, Plaintiff’s motion to

vacate the stay is GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate stay is CONTINUED for twenty

(20) days pending Defendant’s response to this order. 

Case 1:05-cv-00247-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

SO ORDERED

DATED: January 10, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00247-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 5 of 5