NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN D. HORTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1158

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:20-cv-01520-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.

______________________ 

Decided: April 5, 2022

______________________ 

JOHN D. HORTON, Lawton, OK, pro se.

 MARGARET JANTZEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Before CHEN, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2022
2 HORTON v. US

PER CURIAM. 

John Horton appeals from the United States Court of 

Federal Claims’ summary judgment denying Mr. Horton’s 

claim to relief from the debt collected from him by the 

United States. For the below reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Horton was employed by the United States Department of Defense until 2003. During his final pay period, 

the Department of Defense improperly paid Mr. Horton for 

several hours that should have been considered leave without pay or for hours that extended beyond his separation 

date. Twelve years later, in 2015, the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) sent Mr. Horton a letter informing him of the overpayment and stating that he owed the 

government $566.68. Mr. Horton did not respond to this 

letter. In 2016, DFAS turned the debt over to the United 

States Department of Treasury (Treasury) for collection. 

In 2019, Coast Professional, Inc., a service provider for 

the Treasury, sent Mr. Horton a letter informing him of its 

intent to collect the debt. Later that year, Coast Professional sent another letter stating the Treasury intended to 

begin wage garnishment proceedings. That letter informed 

Mr. Horton that he could request a hearing on the validity 

of the debt. Mr. Horton did not respond to these letters or 

request a hearing. In December 2019, the Treasury issued 

a wage garnishment order to Mr. Horton’s employer. 

Mr. Horton’s wages were then garnished to satisfy the 

debt. 

Mr. Horton brought suit in the Court of Federal 

Claims, alleging that “the US federal government, acting 

through the US Dept. of Education . . . or some other unknown federal government entity” improperly garnished 

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2022
HORTON v. US 3

his wages. SAppx. 4–6.1 Mr. Horton alleged that he did 

not owe a federal debt and that the government’s collection 

actions “were unlawful and all money wrongfully taken 

from [Mr. Horton] should be refunded.” SAppx. 5. The 

Court of Federal Claims interpreted Mr. Horton’s complaint as alleging an illegal exaction claim. SAppx. 1–3; 

Horton v. United States, No. 20-1520, 2021 WL 4988036

(Fed. Cl. Oct. 27, 2021). 

The government moved for summary judgment.2 Because Mr. Horton did not identify any contrary facts, the 

court found there were no material facts in dispute. The 

court further noted that Mr. Horton had not identified any 

statute, regulation, or other authority that the government 

allegedly violated in collecting the debt. Continuing, the 

trial court found that “[w]age garnishments are authorized 

1 Citations to “SAppx.” refer to the Appendix attached to the appellee’s brief. 

2 Mr. Horton did not file a timely response to the government’s motion for summary judgment. After the court’s 

judgment on that motion was entered, Mr. Horton belatedly filed a response. See SAppx. 13–14; Order, Horton 

v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-01520-DAT (Fed. Cl. Nov. 4, 

2021), ECF No. 29. In consideration of “the leniency afforded to pro se plaintiffs,” the trial court considered 

Mr. Horton’s response, but determined that nothing in 

Mr. Horton’s response compelled it to grant Mr. Horton relief or reconsider its summary judgment determination. 

SAppx. 14. Similarly considering the leniency given to parties proceeding pro se, we understand Mr. Horton to be 

challenging both the court’s original summary judgment 

determination and its order declining to reconsider that determination. See Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 

812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“[L]eniency with respect to mere formalities should be extended to a pro se

party.”). 

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2022
4 HORTON v. US

means of collecting debts”; “DFAS properly notified 

Mr. Horton of the overpayment and demand for repayment”; and the “Treasury followed the procedures outlined” 

in the applicable debt collection statutes. SAppx. 2–3. Further, while acknowledging that Mr. Horton was “understandably surprised by the United States’ delay in 

collecting a debt that dates back nearly two decades,” the 

court explained that there is no statute of limitations applicable to administrative wage garnishments. SAppx. 3. 

The trial court thus granted the government’s motion, determining that Mr. Horton’s illegal exaction claim failed as 

a matter of law because his debt “was valid, legally established, and collected in accordance with applicable law.” 

SAppx. 3. 

Mr. Horton appeals. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the grant of summary judgment by 

the Court of Federal Claims. Cal. Fed. Bank, FSB 

v. United States, 245 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We 

reapply the same summary judgment standard as the trial 

court. Palahnuk v. United States, 475 F.3d 1380, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2007). Under the standard applied by the Court 

of Federal Claims, summary judgment is appropriate if the 

movant, here the government, “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and that it “is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 56(a). For 

the reasons below, we affirm the trial court’s summary 

judgment.

On appeal, Mr. Horton argues that: (1) the Treasury 

did not meet the statutory notice requirements for wage 

garnishments because it sent notice to Mr. Horton’s former 

address; (2) the garnishment notice was defective because 

it “referred to a ‘US Department of Education’ debt and not 

to a ‘US Department of Defense’ debt”; (3) Mr. Horton’s earlier bankruptcy proceedings preclude collection of the debt 

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 04/05/2022
HORTON v. US 5

at issue; (4) the garnishment is barred by the statute of 

limitations; and (5) the government committed an illegal 

exaction. We take each argument in turn.

We begin with Mr. Horton’s assertion that the Treasury failed to meet statutory notice requirements for debt 

collection because its first letter to Mr. Horton was sent to 

“a residential address which [he] had not lived at since 

2011.” Appellant’s Br. 4. The relevant statute, however, 

only requires that written notice be “sent by mail to the 

individual’s last known address.” 31 U.S.C. § 3720D(b)(2); 

see also 31 C.F.R. § 285.11(e)(1) (notices of wage garnishment shall be sent “to the debtor’s last known address”). 

Mr. Horton has not alleged or provided evidence that he 

provided an updated address to his former employer or that 

the Treasury was otherwise aware of a different mailing 

address. Because Mr. Horton has presented no evidence to 

this effect, he thus has not shown that there is a material 

issue of fact to preclude summary judgment. 

We turn next to Mr. Horton’s argument that the garnishment notice was defective, and thus unenforceable, because it “referred to a ‘US Department of Education’ debt 

and not to a ‘US Department of Defense’ debt.” Appellant’s 

Br. 4–5, 11 (citing § 3720D(b)(2)). As explained in the statutory section Mr. Horton cites, “the head of the executive, 

judicial, or legislative agency” must mail a proper wage 

garnishment notice to the debtor informing him, among 

other things, of “the nature and amount of the debt to be 

collected.” § 3720(D)(b)(2). Mr. Horton argues that because the notices mailed to him stated “that a student loan 

debt was owed to the Department of Education,” they did 

not come “from the head of the” appropriate agency nor adequately inform him of “the nature . . . of the debt” and are 

thus invalid. Appellant’s Br. 4–5, 11, 16. 

Each of the communications sent to Mr. Horton, however, correctly states that the debt is owed to the Department of Defense or DFAS. SAppx. 15–18 (initial demand 

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 04/05/2022
6 HORTON v. US

letter from DFAS describing the debt as originating from 

“corrections to time and attendance”); SAppx. 20 (notice

from Coast Professional referring to Mr. Horton’s “outstanding delinquent federal obligation on behalf of [the] 

Department of Defense”); SAppx. 22 (same). There is no 

mention of the Department of Education or a student loan 

in any of the letters or notices sent to Mr. Horton regarding 

this debt. Because Mr. Horton has not presented evidence 

that the wage garnishment notices were facially defective, 

he has not shown that there is a material issue of fact to 

preclude summary judgment.

Next, we consider Mr. Horton’s argument that his earlier bankruptcy proceedings prevent the collection of the 

debt at issue. Appellant’s Br. 16–17. Mr. Horton alleges 

that he discharged certain student loans in a 1996 bankruptcy proceeding and thus the government cannot now 

seek to collect on those loans. Id. The debt at issue, however, is not a student loan. As mentioned above, each of 

the communications sent to Mr. Horton correctly identify 

the debt as owed to the Department of Defense. See

SAppx. 15–18, 20, 22. Mr. Horton has not presented any 

evidence that the government is attempting to collect a discharged student loan. Accordingly, Mr. Horton has not 

shown there is a material issue of fact precluding summary 

judgment. 

We now turn to Mr. Horton’s argument that the government’s wage garnishment is barred by a statute of limitations. Appellant’s Br. 17, 21–28. As the trial court 

correctly explained, “Congress did not establish a statute 

of limitations applicable to administrative wage garnishments.” SAppx. 3 (first citing 31 U.S.C. § 3720; and then 

citing 31 CFR § 285.11(d)) (“Whenever an agency determines that a delinquent debt is owed by an individual, the 

agency may initiate proceedings administratively to garnish the wages of the delinquent debtor.”). Here, too, 

Mr. Horton has not shown there is a material issue of fact. 

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 04/05/2022
HORTON v. US 7

Finally, we turn to Mr. Horton’s argument that the 

government committed an illegal exaction by garnishing 

his wages. Appellant’s Br. 17–18. An illegal exaction claim 

arises where money is improperly “exacted[] or taken from 

the claimant in contravention of the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation.” Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 

1081, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To properly plead an illegal 

exaction claim, a plaintiff must seek to recover money the 

government required him to pay “contrary to law.” Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572

(Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, Mr. Horton has not shown that the 

government collected the debt at issue in contravention of 

any statute, regulation, or other authority. As the trial 

court explained, “DFAS properly notified Mr. Horton of the 

overpayment and demand for repayment.” SAppx. 2. The 

Treasury subsequently “followed the procedures outlined 

[by statute] by explaining the nature and amount of the 

debt and giving” Mr. Horton an opportunity “to pay the 

debt[] or contest its validity.” SAppx. 2–3. When Mr. Horton did not respond to these notices, the Treasury “issued 

a Wage Garnishment Order that adhered to the limits established” by statute. SAppx. 3. Put simply, as the trial 

court determined, Mr. Horton has not shown that the government has violated any authority in collecting this debt. 

SAppx. 3. Mr. Horton’s illegal exaction claim accordingly 

fails as a matter of law and summary judgment denying 

this claim was properly granted. 

We have considered Mr. Horton’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the judgment of the 

Court of Federal Claims.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1158 Document: 27 Page: 7 Filed: 04/05/2022