FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 26, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 12 82 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 03 3- CV-AR-S PAULA JOHNSON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Fi na nc ia l M an ag em en t Se rv ic e, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m ber 2 6, 2 00 8) Befo re ANDERSON, BIRC H andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pau laJo hn so n, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er

di sm is si ng he r ci vi l co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t t he U.S. Departm en t o f th e Treas ury wit ho utpre

jud ic e fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f. W e AFFIRM. I. BACK GROUND Jo hn so n, an Ill in oi s p riv at e ci ti zen , fil eda pr o s e ci vi l co m pl ai ntag ai ns t t he Fi na nc ia l M an ag em en t Se rv ic e o f th e U.S. Depa rtment o f th e Treas ury (“ Treas ury ”) i n wh ic h s he all eg edth atTreas ury de du ct edm on ey

fro m he r fed eral di sabi li ty ben efi ts invi ol at io n o f 31 U.S.C. §§ 37 11 (a) and37 16 . R1- 1 a t 2 -3 . Jo hn so n s ta te d t ha t s in ce 2 00 4 s he ha d b een m ak in g p aym en ts to th e Il li no is Dep artm en t o f Hum anServ ic es (“ IDHS”) t o p ay off anou ts ta nd in g “ di sp ut ed ” de btsh e o wedth e IDHS. Id . at 2 , 4. Jo hn so n c la im edth atalt ho ug h s he in fo rm ed th e IDHS i n Oct ob er an d No ve m be r 20 07 th atsh e h adin cu rredem erg en cy m ed ic al ex pe ns es th atpre ve nt edhe r fro m m ak in g fu rth er p aym en ts , Treas ury ne ve rth el es s wi th he ld“ ov er $ 20 0.0 0” fro m he r m on th ly feder al di sabi li ty checkto sa ti sf y th e IDHS d eb t, caus in g h er ex tre m e fi na nc ia l h ard sh ip . Id. at2-3 . Jo hn so n reque st edin

jun ct iv e rel ie f di rect in g t he Treas ury to (1) ceas e al l u nl awfu l co ll ect io ns of t he di sp ut edde bt , (2) actlawf ul ly in t he co ll ect io n o f th e d is pu te d de bt , and(3) return a ll m on ie s u nl awfu ll y de du ct edfro m

he r di sabi li ty ben efi ts . Id . at 3 -4 . 2Whe n Tre as ury fai le d t o t im el y

res po ndto th e co m

pl ai nt , Jo hn so n m ov ed fo r de fau ltjud gm en t, al le gi ng th atTreas ury ’s withh ol di ng of h er fe de ral be ne fit s was un la wfu l an d v io la te d h er ri gh t t o due pro ces s u nd er the Ill in oi s C on st itut io n an d Il li no is st atut ory

law. R1 -9 at 1 -3 . Jo hn so n fu rth er cl ai m edth atTreas ury ’s act io ns am ou nt edto in te nt io na l i nf li ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss an d d em an de d actua l d am ag es in th e am ou ntwit hh el d fr om he r di sabi li ty ben efi ts . Id. at2-3 . Treas ury res po nd ed , arg ui ng th ata de fau ltjud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te an d m ov edto di sm is s t he co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f, pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ). R1 -1 2 a t 3 , 5; R1 -1 3. In supp ort o f it s m ot io n t o d is m is s, Trea su ry co nt en de d t ha t i t was na m edas ade fen da nton ly be cau se itop erat edth e Treas ury Offs etPro gr am

(“ TOP”), a ce nt ral iz edde bt co ll ect io n p ro gr am

us edby feder al an d s ta te ag en ci es to co ll ectde li nq ue ntno n- ta x de bt s. R1 -1 4 a t 4 . Treas ury ass ert edth atitha s n o i nd ep en de ntau th or it y to de te rm in e whe th er a d eb t i s v al idor wh ethe r a fed eral pa ym en t s ho ul d b e o ffs et an d i s re qu ire d t o i m

pl em en t the off

se t o nc e a d eb t i s p ro pe rly certi fie d b y th e cred it orag en cy . Id. at5-6 . Treas ury furth er as se rte d t ha t b ecau se th e ag en ci es th em se lv es are t he pa rti es res po ns ib le foraffo rd in g due pro ces s t o t he ir d eb to rs , Jo hn so n’s re qu es t fo r rel ie f was m or e p ro pe rly addres se d t o IDHS, wh ic h es tabl is he d t he de btan d re ferr editto Treas ury forco ll ect io n. Id . at 4 . 3The di stric t co urt d en ie d J oh ns on ’s m ot io n fo r a d efau ltjud gm en t an d

gr an te d Tre as ury ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. Se e R1 -1 7 a t 1 -2 . Con st ru in g J oh ns on ’s co m pl ai ntli be ral ly, th e co urt fo un d t ha t J oh ns on sh ou ldha ve so ug htrel ie f ag ai ns t IDHS an d n otTreas ury , th athe r al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Trea su ry were “ de vo idof co lo rab le m eri t,” a ndth athe r co m pl ai ntwas fr au gh t wi th “ ot he r in su rm ou nt ab le sh ortc om in gs .” Id . at 1 -2 . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he co m pl ai ntfai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m ag ai ns t Trea su ry

an d “ co ul d n otbe am en de d t o d o s o.” Id. at2. J oh ns on 1 no w app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r co m pl ai nt . II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Jo hn so n c on te nd s t ha t: (1) sh e was de ni eddu e p ro ces s u nd er the Ill in oi s C on st itut io n; (2) Treas ury was a ware o f IDHS’s “ un la wfu l d is cri m in at ory co ll ect io n p ract ic es ” an d h adth e “ so le res po ns ib il it y ” n otto in te nt io na ll y di sr eg ardth e d ep riv at io ns of wh ic h i t was aware; (3) Treas ury ’s act io ns vi ol at ed th e st at e-i m

m un it y pro vi si on of t he Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. § 1 22 02 , as wel l as reg ul at io ns co di fie d a t 2 8 C .F.R. Part35 reg ard in g d is ab il it y In rende ringits decision, the district court first conc luded that it lacked subje ct matter 1 jurisdiction over the c omplaint. Although it found alter natively that the complaint fa iled to state a claim for r elief, w e note that jurisdiction was pr oper unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1331 beca use at lea st some of Johnson’s claims presented que stions of feder al law. See Bute ro v. Royal Mac cabe es L ife Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 1207, 1212 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ [A] cause of ac tion arises under fede ral law only when the pla intiff’s well-ple aded c omplaint raises issues of fe dera l law.”) (citation omitted).

4di sc riminat io n i n s ta te an d l oc al go ve rn m en t s erv ic es ; an d (4 ) Treas ury ’s refu sa l t o

acton th e in fo rm at io n s he pro vi de d t o i t co ns ti tu te d i nt en ti on al in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss an d was raci stan d d is cri m in at ory . 2 W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , acce pt in g t he all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru in g th em in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. Arth urv. Ki ng , 50 0 F .3d13 35 , 13 39 (11 th Cir .) (p er cu ria m), cert . den ie d, 1 28 S.Ct . 66 0 (2 00 7) . Dis m is sa l u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) is ap pr op ria te “ on ly whe n t he m ov an t d em on st rat es be y on d d oubt th atth e p la in ti ff ca n p ro ve no setof f act s i n s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m whi ch wou ld en ti tl e h im

to rel ie f.” Sp ai n v . Bro wn & W il li am so n To ba cco Co rp ., 36 3 F .3d 11 83 , 11 87 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) .

“ The pra ct ic e o f wit hh ol di ng fed eral pa ym en t i n s at is fact io n o f a d eb t i s kn own as an a dm in is tra ti ve off se t.” Re ev es v. As tru e, 52 6 F .3d73 2, 7 38 n.3 (11 th Ci r.), pe ti ti on forcert . fil ed(U.S. Aug . 1, 2 00 8) (No. 0 8- 56 05 ). The Deb t Co ll ect io n Impro ve m en t Actof 1 98 2, 3 1 U.S.C. § § 3 70 1 e t s eq ., aut ho riz es th e

J ohnson also arg

ues that Tre asury

(1) intentionally

and maliciously

violated the De bt 2 Collection Improvement Ac t; (2) violated the pr ocedur es of 7 C.F .R. § 273.18 (g overning rec apture of food- stamp overpa y ments); and (3) violated 31 U.S.C. § 3718 (allowingfede ral ag encie s to enter c ontrac ts for debt-c ollection service s). B eca use she r aises these claims for the first time in her re ply

brief, w e dec line to addre ss them. See B ig T op Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-Ma n Snacks, Inc., 528 F .3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008) (“ We decline to addr ess an a rgument advanc ed by an appe llant for the f

irst time in a reply

brief.” ). 5Treas ury

Depa rtment “ to co ll ectno n- ta x d eb ts by w it hh ol di ng fun ds pa idou t b y ot he r fed eral ag en ci es .” Reev es , 52 6 F .3dat 7 38 n.3 ; s ee 3 1 U.S.C. § 37 16 (a); 31 C.F.R. § 28 5.5 . Purs ua ntto th e TOP, an y fed eral ag en cy

wit h acla im

ag ai ns t t he de bt or , aft er n ot ifyin g t he de bt orth atth e d eb t i s s ub ject t o a dm in is tra ti ve off se t an d p ro vi di ng anop po rtu ni ty to d is pu te th e d eb t o r m ak e arr an ge m en ts to pa y it , m ay co ll ectth e d eb t b y

adm in is tra ti ve off

se t. See 31 U.S.C. § 3 71 6( a), (c) (6 ). In or de r to do so , th e cre di to r ag en cy m us t ce rti fy

to Treas ury

th atth e d eb t i s el ig ib le fo r co ll ect io n b y

off se t an d t ha t al l due pro ces s p ro te ct io ns ha ve be enm et . See 3 1 3 C.F.R. § 28 5.5 (d )(3 )(i i), (d )(6 ). If p ro pe rly certi fie d, t he Treas ury Depa rtment m us t ad m in is tra ti ve ly offs etth e d eb t. Se e 3 1 U.S.C. § 37 16 (c)( 1) (A). Alt ho ug h J oh ns on na m edTreas ury as t he so le de fen da nt , th e al le ga ti on s i n he r co m pl ai ntfoc us edpri m ari ly on a ll eg edwron gd oi ng by IDHS in i ts effo rts to co ll ecta “ di sp ut ed ” d eb t. The ess en ce o f Jo hn so n’s co m pl ai ntwas t ha t Trea su ry act edil le ga ll y

by w it hh ol di ng a po rti on of h er d is ab il it y be ne fit s, d es pi te he r ha vi ng no ti fie d t he IDHS th atsh e en co un te redem erg en cy m ed ic al ex pe ns es th at le ft h er unabl e to pa y

he r un de rlyin g d eb t. Trea su ry , ho wev er, h adno st atut ory To be e ligible f

or collec tion by

administrative offse t, a debt submitted to Trea sury must 3 be: (1) pa st-due in the amount stated by the cr editor ag ency ; (2) leg ally enforcea ble; (3) less than ten year s delinquent, unless the debt leg ally may be off set if more tha

n ten year s delinquent; (4) more than $25; a

nd (5) not sec ured by

collater al subject to a pe nding f orec losure ac tion. See 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(d)( 3)(i). 6au th or it y

ov er the de bt , no r an y

rol e in de te rm in in g wh ethe r orno t t he de btwas va li d o r whe th er J oh ns on ’s ben efi t p aym en t s ho ul d b e o ffs et . Rath er, o nc e th e IDHS certi fie d t he de btto Treas ury , Treas ury was l eg al ly obl ig at edto off se t Jo hn so n’s d is ab il it y

pa ym en t i n s at is fact io n o f th e d eb t. See 31 U.S.C. § 3 71 6( c)(1 )(A); 31 C.F.R. § 28 5.5 (d )(6 ). Furth er, i t i s t he cred it orag en cy , no t th e d is bu rs in g a ge nc y , th atis requi redto en su re tha t t he de bt orrece iv es du e pr oc es s u nd er the law. Se e 3 1 U.S.C. § 37 16 (a). Be cau se rel ie f ag ai ns t Trea su ry wou ldbe im

pr op er i n t hi s ca se , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y di sm is se d J oh ns on ’s co m pl ai ntwit ho utpre

jud ic e fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . II I. CONCLUS IO N Jo hn so n app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r co m pl ai ntwit ho ut pr ejud ic e u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). Becaus e Jo hn so n’s co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Trea su ry fai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m

up on whi ch rel ie f m ay

be grant ed , we AFFIRM .

7