Pur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Pr oc e dure 25 (d ), To m V ils a c k is a uto matic a lly 1 substitut ed as de fenda

nt for his prede cessor

as Secr etar

y of Ag riculture, E d Schafe r. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
WILBUR WILKINSON, P laintif f-Pe titioner, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 85 4 ( JD B) TO M VI LS ACK, 1 Secre tary of Agriculture , et al., De fend ant s- Re spo nde nt s.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pe tit ion e r Wi lbu

r Wi lki ns on

br ing s th is a c tio n o n b e ha lf of his pa re nts , E rn e st a

nd Mo lli e Wil kinson, for a writ of mandamus dire cted to re spondents Tom Vilsack, the Sec reta ry of Ag riculture, a

nd the United States De partment of A g riculture ( "U SDA") . Wil kinson contends that responde nts have a

duty to pay damag es re sulting fr om an administrative adjudication
c on c lud ingthat U SDA

dis c ri min ate d a g a ins t hi s p are nts . N owbe fo re the Court is r e sp on de nts ' motion to di smiss t he ver ified petition for a writ of mandamus. BACK GR OUND Wil kinson's pa

rents, Mollie and Er

nest Wil kinson, now dece ased, w ere Americ an Indians from Nor th Dakota. See V. Pet. for Writ of Mandamus ("Pet." ) [Docket Entry 1], ¶¶ 2, 5. They alleg edly filed a c omplaint ag ainst USDA on Marc h 5, 1990, claimingthat a pre dece ssor of the Farm S erv i ce s Age n cy , a c o mp o n en to f U S DA , d i s cr i m i n at edaga i n s tth em i nad m i n i s t er i n g a U S D A c r e d i tp r o g r am . S e e i d
. U S D A d i d n o tt ak e an y

a c t i o no nth e W i l k i n s o n s ' c o mp l a i n t . InThe de lay s in the complaint' s proce ssing do not bea r on the leg al issues curr ently befor e 2 the Court . A t le a st s ome of the de lay wa s attr ibuta

ble to a sti ll- pe nd ingc la ss a c tio n, Ke e ps e a g le v. Vilsack, Civ. Action No. 99-3119. Wilkinson opted out of that class. -2- the late 1990s, howe ver, U SDA admitted that "[d]uring much of the 1980s and 1990s, USDA administrative proc esses for revie w of program c ivil rights complaints filed ag ainst USDA
a g e nc ie s b y

pr og ra m pa rt ic ipa nts did no t f un c tio n e ff

e c tiv e ly ." Ad

min ist rativ e Civ il Ri g hts Adjudications Under

Section 741, 63 Fe d. Reg . 67,392, at 67,392 (De c. 4, 1998). I n response , Con g re ss e na c te d a

sp e c ia l a dju dic atio n s tatut e , k no wn a s Se c tio n 7 41 , " to w a ive the a pp lic a ble statutes of limitation for those individuals who had filed non-e mploy ment related discrimination complaints with USDA alleg ing disc rimination during [the 1980s and e arly 1990s]." I d. Pursuant to this l eg islation, USDA's Of fice of Civil R ights notified the Wilkinsons in S eptember of 2000 that they

could file a

reque st for the 1990 discr imination complaint to be processe d under Section 741. See Pet. at ¶ 8. The Wilkinsons filed such a reque st the following month, and U SDA set the 1990 discrimination complaint for Section 741 proc essingin April 2003. I d. In August 2006, USDA 2 notified the Wilki nsons that their Section 741 Complaint R equest wa s "e ligible," and ther efor e the Wilki nsons could reque st an adjudication before an administrative law judge (" AL J ") . I d. at ¶ 9. The Wilkinsons did s o, and the c ase pr ocee ded bef ore se nior AL J Victor Palmer. See id. at ¶¶ 10, 11. The parties a g ree d to bifurcate this procee ding, suc h that the AL J would deter mine l i a b i l i ty b e f o r e a s s e s s i n gd am a g e s . S e e P e t . , E x h i b i tB ( D e t e r m i n at i o nP artT w o ) , 1
. T h e A LJ the n f ound USD A l ia

ble to t he Wilk ins on s, c on c lud ingthat th e a g e nc y ha d d isc ri min ate d a g a ins t the Wilk ins on s in

vio latio n o f t

he Eq ua l Cr e dit Op po rt un ity Ac t. S e e id. , E xhibi t A (De termination Part One) , 1. The AL J set a he aringto determine the appropr iate dama g es aw ard.McKa y found that Wilki nson failed to demonstrate that his pare nts' c omplaint was 3 timely filed. See Resp' ts' Me m., Ex . 1 (F inal Deter mination), 5-7. McKa

y also addre ssed the merits of the c omplaint, finding seve ral e rror s with the AL J ' s damag es ana ly sis. See id. at 37. -3- See id., Exhi bit A at 17. Section 741 authorizes USDA' s Assistant Secreta ry for Civil Rights (" ASCR") to revie w any AL J deter

mination, and conclude whether it will become USDA' s final adjudication. See 7 C.F.R. § 15f.24(a ). He re, the Assistant Secreta ry , Marg o McKa

y , intervene d befor e the damag es hear ing. I

nvoking he r discre tion under Section 741 to revie w a pr oposed dete rmination, she sta y e d th e dama g e s h e ari ngin o rd e r t o r e vie w the lia bil ity de te rm inatio n. Se e Re sp ' ts' Me m. i n Supp. of Mot. to Dism iss ("Resp' ts' Me m.") [Docket Entry 7], Ex hibit 2 (ASCR ' s Order), at 2. Wil kinson opposed the stay , and filed a motion with t he AL J to proce ed with the sche duled damag es hea

ring . See Pet., Ex. B at 3. The A L J construed Mc Kay ' s "r equest that the sc heduled hear ing not be held" as " an ele ction" that the AL J rea ch a da mag es findingwithout a hear ing, se e id., and issued the dama g es dete rmination on J une 18, 2008, findingdamag es of $5,284,647, se e id. at 6. In other wor ds, the ca se proc eede d on two separ ate tra cks: as the AL J was a war ding damag es notwithstanding the stay of that hea

ring , McKa

y was c ompleting he r re view of the liability deter mination. Wil kinson sought pay

ment of those dama g es on September 5, 2008, a re quest that the Fa rm Service s Ag ency

opposed and U SDA reje cted. See Pet. at ¶ 18. McKa y issued her f

inal liability deter mination on October 27, 2008, c oncludingthat the Wilki nsons' c omplaint was not elig ible for Sec tion 741 relief. Wil kinson then commence d this action on October 27, 2008, for 3
a wr it of mandamus re quiring responde nts to satisfy the AL J ' s damag es aw ard.Respondents make the additional argument that the AL J ' s decision was inc orre ct on the 4 me ri ts. B e c a

us e of the pr oc e dura l po stu

re of thi s c a se , th e Court

c ann ot c on sid e r t

his argume nt. -4- AN AL YSI S Mandamus is a dra stic remedy to be invoked only

in ext raor dinary

situations and gr anted only when e ssential to the interests of justice. See Og lala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge I

ndian Reservation v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng ' rs, 570 F.3d 327, 333 ( D.C. Cir. 2009); Chatman-B ey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 n.2 ( D.C. Cir. 1988). Mandamus is appropr iate only wher e “( 1) the plaintiff has a

clea r rig ht to relief; (2) the def endant ha s a cle ar duty

to act; and ( 3) there is no other a dequate reme dy

available to the plaintiff.” In re Me dicar e Reimburseme nt L itig., 414 F .3d 7, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (c itations omi tted). The pa rty seekingmandamus has the " ' burden of showing that [hi s] right to issuance of the writ is clea

r and indisputable.' " Gulfstream Aerospa ce Corp v. May aca

mas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (quotingBa nkers L ife & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953))
. Re sp on de nts c on te nd

he re that be c a

us e the ASC R r e ve rs e d th e AL J' s li a bil ity d e t e r m i n at i o n , W i l k i n s o nd o e s n o th av e a c l e ar r i g h tt o d am a g e s . S e e R e s p ' t s ' M e m . at4
. In fac t, they offe r that " the AL J lacke d any authority to enter a n awa rd of damag es bec ause the [ASCR ] ha d a lr e a dy

div e ste d th e AL J of j ur isd ic tio n b y a g re e ingto r e vie w the lia bil ity deter mination." I d. at 5. 4 Wil kinson responds that the ASCR's a ction was a n improper " interlocutory revie w" of the AL J 's det erm in ati on . S ee P et'r's Fi rst Mem . i n Op p'n t o M ot . t o Di sm is s ("P et'r's 1 stOpp 'n") [ Doc ketEn try

11 ] , at5; P et'r's S econ d M em. in Opp 'n to Mo t. to Di sm is s ("P et'r's 2 d Op p'n")Wil kinson filed two memoranda in oppositi on to the motion to di smiss, one pro se, and 5 one throug h counsel. B eca use re spondents do not challeng e the pr opriety of these f ilings, the Court will consider the ar g uments raised in both memora nda. Additionally , Wil kinson noticed th e d i s m i s s al o f h i s at t o rn ey o nOc t o b er

2 6 , 2 0 0 9
. T h i s d i s m i s s al d o es n o tb ea r o nth e C o urt 's decision her e. -5- [Docket Entry

12], at 3-4. Although Wilkinson concede s that the ASCR has a rig ht to review a n 5 ALJ 's d et erm i n at i o n , h e a s s ert s th atth e A S C R ca no n l y d o s o wi th i n3 5 d ay s o f a nALJ 's deter mination. See Pet'r ' s 1st Opp'n at 6 (citing 7 C.F.R. § 15f.24(a )). B eca use the pa rties ag ree d to bifurcate the AL J ' s adjudication, Wilki nson claims, the AL J could not rende r his deter mination until after the da

mag es aw ard. See id.; see also Pet' r' s 2d Opp' n at 3-4. The ASCR's revie w of the liability

deter mination was there fore an improper "inter locutory

revie w" of an A L J ruling
. See Pet' r' s 1st Opp'n at 5 (citing 7 C.F.R. § 15f.21(d) (8) ( "I nterlocutory

revie w of ruling s by

the AL J will not be permitted." )); see also Pet' r' s 2d Opp' n at 3 (c iting same ). The A L J ' s damag es deter mination therefor e is the USDA' s final, enf orce able de cision acc ordingto Wi lkinson. Not so, say

responde nts. 7 C.F.R. § 15f.24 "e x pressly " pe rmits the ASCRto reviewan AL J ' s determination " without reg ard to the sc ope of that proposed dec ision." Resp' ts' Reply at 5. And eve n though the parties a g ree d to bifurcate the adjudication, "[n] othing in the r egulations require s the [ASC R] to wait until there is also a propose d deter mination on damag es." I d. at 6. Indeed, " [t ]here would be no ne ed for a dama g es dete rmination if the [ASC R] reve rsed the de c isi on on lia bil ity
. . . . " I d. At

the le a st, re sp on de nts su g g e st, the a bs e nc e of sp e c if ic proce dures g overningwhen the A SCRis empowere d to reviewan AL J deter mination requires the Court to give "the Secre tary [of Agr iculture' s] i nterpre tation of his rules . . . controlling
we ig ht. " I d. at 7. Ac c or din g ly , th e ASC R va lid ly sta y e d th e pr oc e e din g s in

the Wilk ins on s' c a se and ther eby

divested the AL J of jurisdiction. See id. at 9.-6-

Respondents have the better of this argument. The Court " must give substantial defe renc e to an a g ency' s interpre tation of its own regulations." Thomas Jeffe rson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994); se e also Or ion Reserve s L td. P'ship v. Salazar, 553 F .3d 697, 70 7 ( D. C. C ir . 2 00 9) . It ma y on ly inv a lid ate USD A' s a dju dic ativ e pr oc e dure s " if the pla in languag e of the regulation or ' other indications of the [age ncy ' s] i ntent' require another int e rp re tatio n. ' " Se e Or ion Re se rv e s, 55 3 F .3 d at 70 7 ( qu oti ngTh oma s Jef fe rs on Un iv. , 5 12 U. S. at 512, and F abi Constr. Co. v. Sec' y of L abor, 508 F .3d 1077, 1080-81 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) . A court' s task "is not to dec ide which a mong se vera l competinginterpre tations best serves the
re g ulator y purp os e . Rathe r, the a g e nc y ' s inte rp re tatio n mu st b e g ive n ' c on tr oll ingwe ig ht u nle ss i t is plainly err oneous or inconsistent with the re g ulation.'" Thomas J eff erson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512 (quoting Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965) ). There is no showing he re that USDA' s interpre tation of the re g ulations gove rningSection 741 adjudicative pr ocee dings w as " plainly err oneous" or " inconsistent" with those re g ulations. Neither the " plain languag e" of the Sec tion 741 administ rative pr ocedur e rule s nor " other indications of the [ag ency' s] i ntent" indica te that the ASCR's a ctions were improper. See Orion Re se rv e s, 55 3 F .3 d a

t 70 7. Ind e e d, the ASC R is e mpo we re d to " [m]ak e fi na l de te rm inatio ns in pr oc e e din g s und e r p art

15 f o f t his tit le wh e re re vie w o f a n a dmi nis tr ativ e law j ud g e de c isi on is
un de rt ake n. " 7 C. F .R. § 2 .2 5( a )( 21 ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . H e nc e , a n A L J dec isi on

in t he se c a se s is only a re commendation until the ASCR's revie w has tra nspired: The AL J may

rec ommend dismiss al of your complaint . . . ; rec ommend denial . . . on the me ri ts; or

make a pr op os e d f

ind ingof dis c ri min atio n o n your e lig ibl e complaint and re commend to awa rd you . . . relief

. . . . The propose d de te rm inatio n w ill be c ome the fi na l de te rm inatio n 3 5 d ay s a ft e r i t is ma de , unle ss y ou re qu e st r e vie w o f t

he pr op os e d d e te rm inatio n b y the ASC R. T he ASC R a lsoThe plain languag e of the regulations disposes of Wi lkinson's ar g ument that USDA 6 Gene ral Counsel improper ly "a ppeale d" the liability

deter mination. Under 7 C.F.R. § 15f.24, the ASCR "may

revie w the propose d deter mination on his or her own initiative." Her e, the F arm Service s Ag ency

filed a " reque st" for

ASCR review, and the ASCR "decide d to exercise [her] discretion to re view" the liability deter mination. See Resp' ts' Me m., Ex hibit 2, at 1-2. Howeve r the ASC R le arn e d o f t

he AL J det e rm inatio n, sh e c ho se to e xer c ise he r r e g ulator y dis c re tio n to rec onsider it: this was not "plainly err oneous or inconsistent with the re g ulation." See Thomas J eff erson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512. -7- may revie w the propose d deter mination on his or her own initiative. 7 C. F .R. § 1 5f

.2 4( a ) ( e mph a se s a dd e d) . B y thi s la ngua g e , th e ASC R argua

bly wa s a uth or ize d to revie w the AL J ' s liabilit y deter mination. 6 Se c tio n 7 41 ' s p ro hib iti on

of " int e rl oc uto ry

re vie w" is n ot p la inl y

to t he c on tr ary . 7 C.F .R. § 15f.21(d) (8) pr eclude s only "[i]i nterlocutory

revie w of ruling s by

the AL J . . . ." A lthough the
re g ulatio ns de fi ne ne ith e r " int e rl oc uto ry re vie w" no r " ru lin g s, " se e id. § 1 5f .4 , th e y do su g g e st that "r ulings," as used in 7 C.F.R. § 15f.21( d)(8) , ref ers to minor trial mana g ement dec isions the AL J makes duringthe adjudication. See id. § 15f.21(d)( 2)(i) ( "I f a pa rty objects to the admission of any e vid e nc e or

to t he lim itatio n o f t

he sc op e of

any e xami natio n o r c ro ss- e xami natio n o r t o any other rulingof the AL J , the par ty must state briefly

the g rounds of such obje ction.")
. Moreove r, the prohibition on "inter locutory revie w" is found in the code se ction entitled "What
ru le s are a

pp lic a ble to t he a c tua l c on du c t of

the he ari ng ? " Se e id. § 1 5f .2 1. Th is i s in

c on tr a st t o the ASCR's authority

to reviewan AL J deter

mination, which is found in the code se ction entitled "When a nd in what form will a de nial deter mination be made on my

complaint by

USDA? " See id. § 15f.24. Readingthese two sec tions in concert, the pr ohibition on "interlocutory revie w"
wo uld no t se e m to lim it A SCR r e vie w o f A L J det e rm inatio ns . At the least, the Court c annot say that "the plain languag e of the regulation or otherThe Court expresses no position on the merits of the Wilkinsons ' administrative 7 complaint. Wil kinson may be able "to se ek judicial re view in the United States Court of F eder al Claims or a United States District Court of compe tent jurisdiction" of the ASCR's final deter mination dism issing his pare nts' c omplaint. See 7 C.F.R. § 15f.26. -8- i n d i ca t i o n s o f t h e [ age n cy 's ] i n t en t " r en d er i mp erm i s s i b l e t h e A S C R 's re v i ew o f t h e A L J 's liability deter mination. Orion Reserve s, 553 F.3d at 707. USDA "is e ntitled to prescribe its own proce dures," Robertson v. Fe d. Election Comm'n, 45 F .3d 486, 491 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and " an ag ency' s interpre tation of its own regulations" re ceive s "substantial de fer ence ," T homas J ef fe rs o nUn i v . , 5 1 2 U. S
. at5 1 2
. T h e C o urtca n n o ts u b s t i tu t e i t s o wn v i ew o f t h e a gen cy 's proce dures whe re, a s here , those proce dures do not contr avene the plain languag e of the g ov e rn ingre g ulatio ns . In th e e nd , th e n, Wilk ins on ' s a rgume nt c e rt a inl y

is n ot o n s uc h s oli d footing as to satisfy

the ver y stringe nt test for mandamus relief. Wilkinson has not shown a

" c le ar r ig ht" to t

he re lie f h e se e ks or

that r e sp on de nts have a

" c le ar d uty " to p ro vid e tho se damag es under

the applica

ble rules. The ref

ore, he has fa iled to state a c laim for the "e x traordina

ry reme dy " of

mandamus. See In re Chene y , 544 F.3d 311, 312 ( D.C. Cir. 2008). 7

CO NC LU SION The Court must defe r to the ag ency ' s interpre tation of its regulations and henc e to the pr oc e dure s U SDAus e d in c on sid e ri ngthe Wilk ins on s' a dmi nis tr ativ e c omp la int . B e c a us e Wil kinson has not stated a c laim that would demonstrate a clea r rig ht to the relief he seeks, the Court dismi sses without prejudice the verifie d petition for a wr it of mandamus. A sepa rate order
acc ompanies this opinion. / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: Oc tober 29, 2009-9-

Copy to: Wil bur Wilki nson P.O. Box 142 Gar rison, ND 58540