eke a

payment from Plaintiff on the loans, which continued to accrue interest on the unpaid
principal. Plaintiff made some payments and this money was applied to paying
interest and collection costs which had accumulated. Plaintiffs debt balance continued
to grow, however, as the accrued interest outstripped his payments. Finally, on
January 27, 1996, the guaranty agency transferred the loans to the Department, which
is now seeking repayment of the original balance as well as the interest that has
accumulated in the intervening years.

The court has seen no records suggesting that Plaintiff's loans were discharged
in bankruptcy or for any other reason. As noted, Defendants’ records appear
scrupulous and thorough. In his brief, Plaintiff charges the Department with
negligence and with falsification of his interest obligations. He does not explain the
nature of the Department’s alleged wrongdoing, however. In the face of Defendants’
extensive report and without specific allegations, this court sees no legal or factual
basis for Plaintiffs assertions of misfeasance. In any event, as noted, there is no
private right of action udner HEA and no right to bring this case against the
government.

CONCLUSION

The Department’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5-1) is granted. Plaintiffs motion

to discharge (Doc. No. 3-1) is denied. This case is dismissed.
ENTER:

Dated: October 22, 2001

Route Dd Be pocete
REBECCA R. Labia

United States Distfict ‘ne



Department's counsel has furnished a number of documents that clarify Plaintiffs loan
history. Having reviewed those materials briefly, the court notes that nothing in the
record suggests that Defendant has negligently or deliberately wronged Plaintiff.
Among the twenty-five exhibits composing Defendant’s report are promissory notes;
copies of disbursement checks paid to Plaintiff: loan records, including summaries of
unpaid principal and interest in arrears; lender disclosure records detailing the
amounts Plaintiff borrowed, interest rates, and repayment schedules; credits for
payments made by Plaintiff; and a chart of interest accrual since the Department
acquired Plaintiff's loans from private lenders. Defendant’s Motion includes lengthy
summaries of the history and calculation of each of Plaintiffs five outstanding student
loans, only three of which are now held by the Department.

The report provided by Defendant suggests the following chronology for the
three Department loans. First, on three occasions in 1988, Plaintiff signed a
promissory note and took out a student loan from a lender. Each of the loans had a
grace period of six months, and Plaintiff was therefore scheduled to begin repaying the
three loans on different dates in late 1988 and early 1989. Although the records before
the court suggest that there was no consolidation of the three loans, Plaintiff defaulted
on all of them on the same day, July 17, 1990. After these defaults, the loans were
transferred from the private lenders to the Wisconsin Higher Education Corporation
(now called the Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation), a guaranty agency which
paid Plaintiffs private lenders and took possession of his loan and the unpaid interest
that had accumulated on it. After taking over the loans, the guaranty agency sought

3


Minute Ord

C\

ler Form €06/97) a
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

L—4
Name of ASigned Judge Rebec; . Pallmeyer Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge nm than Assigned Judge
.
CXSE NUMBER Wor C757 DATE 10/22/2001
CASE Tyrone Carter vs. U. S. Department of Education
TITLE
{Un the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
f the motion bei 5
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due _
(G3) 0 Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due____.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on setfor at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(©) a] Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CFRCP4(m) (General Rule2] CFRCP41(a\(1) CI FRCP41(a\(2).
(10) MM [Otherdocket entry) Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Department’s motion to dismiss
(Doc. 5-1) is granted. Plaintiff's motion to discharge (Doc. No. 3-1) is denied. This case is dismissed.
(i) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court
2
No notices required. umber of notices
| Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. DCT, aa het oes
Docketing to mail notices. q
v | Mail AO 450 form. i) ddyketing deputy init
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. reg sononon
. date mailed notice
courtroom GCT 2? pier.
eIV deputy's Uf GCT 22 Ff Mou 16 mv
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS &
EASTERN DIVISION Ly Gee
UL»
CPs
TYRONE CARTER, a,

Plaintiff,
v. No. 01 C 757

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

www ew

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tyrone Carter (“Carter”), pro se, brings this action against the United
States Department of Education (“the Department”), alleging negligence and
wrongdoing in the calculation of his student loan debt and the interest thereon.
Plaintiff seeks a discharge of the balance of his debt. Defendant now moves to dismiss
this complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motions are granted.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs five student loans were administered between March 1, 1984 and
September 28, 1989 under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (formerly the
Guaranteed Student Loan Program). (National Student Loan Data System, Aggregate
Loan Information, Ex. A, Defendant’s Written Status Report and Motion to Dismiss.)
Of these five, three are now administered by the Department. Plaintiff obtained the
three loans at issue here to study welding at the Milwaukee Area Technical College.
(Promissory Notes, Exs. B, E, H to Defendants’ Report and Memo.) He obtained two

other loans to study at Malcolm X College in Chicago. (Ex. A.) The loans were


provided under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (hereinafter “HEA”)(20
U.S.C. 1071 et seq.). Although Carter does not allege a jurisdictional basis for his
complaint, the HEA appears to be the federal statute most closely relevant to his
action.

Although the Seventh Circuit has not specifically addressed the issue, other
courts considering the matter have held that the HEA does not provide a private right
of action for individual plaintiffs. See, e.g., L’ggrke v. Bekula, 966 F.2d 1346, 1347-48
(10th Cir. 1992) (business student alleging wrongful retention of funds and breach of
fiduciary duties under HEA failed to state a claim); Williams v. National Sch. of Health
Tech., 836 F. Supp. 273, 278-281 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Hudson v. Academy of Court
Reporting, Inc., 746 F. Supp. 718, 721 (S.D. Ohio 1990). Accordingly, this court finds
that Carter has not stated a cognizable claim under HEA, and his action must be
dismissed. This conclusion is only bolstered by case law suggesting that the
Department of Education enjoys sovereign immunity against suits to which it has not
consented. See Myler v. United States Dep't of Educ., 863 F.2d 49 (6th Cir. 1988)
(unpublished opinion); Pettis v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 146 B.R. 653, 655 (B.D.
Pa. 1992); Hankerson v. United States Dep't of Educ., 138 B.R. 478, 478 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Thus, even if there were some basis for a suit against a lender or education institution
under the HEA, Plaintiffs action against the Department is a nonstarter.

The legal disposition of this case renders any exacting scrutiny of the merits of

Plaintiffs claim unnecessary. In an effort to assist Mr. Carter, however, the