Court Opinion

ID: 9410988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 15:01:53.532931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:01.997096
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1029    Document: 39     Page: 1   Filed: 07/25/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  RICHARD PEAMON,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1029
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00417-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: July 25, 2023
                  ______________________

    RICHARD PEAMON, Baltimore, MD, pro se.

     BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

   Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CUNNINGHAM,
                     Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1029    Document: 39      Page: 2    Filed: 07/25/2023

 2                                              PEAMON   v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Richard Peamon appeals a decision of the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims dismissing his case for failure to state a claim
 upon which relief can be granted. For the following rea-
 sons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Peamon is a United States Army veteran who be-
 gan receiving Social Security disability benefits in 1995.
 Recently, Mr. Peamon sought medical treatment from the
 Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which resulted in
 an unpaid bill. In November 2021, the Department of
 Treasury, Bureau of Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) notified
 Mr. Peamon of his debt to the VHA and indicated that up
 to 15 percent of his monthly Social Security benefit would
 be withheld until the debt was resolved. S. Appx. 16. 1 The
 following month, the Fiscal Service began to withhold a
 portion of Mr. Peamon’s benefit. Id. at 21, 24, 28. On April
 4, 2022, Mr. Peamon filed a complaint in the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims seeking an injunction to halt future withhold-
 ings and requesting associated damages, interest, and
 costs. Id. at 10–12. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed
 Mr. Peamon’s complaint for failure to state a claim, id. at
 5–9, and denied his motion for reconsideration. Id. at 2–4.
 Mr. Peamon appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(3).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review de novo whether the Court of Federal
 Claims properly dismissed a case for failure to state a claim
 upon which relief can be granted. Wheeler v. United States,
 11 F.3d 156, 158 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To survive a motion to

     1   “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
 tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief, ECF No. 19.
Case: 23-1029     Document: 39      Page: 3   Filed: 07/25/2023

 PEAMON   v. US                                              3

 dismiss, the complaint must plausibly allege facts, when
 accepted as true, suggesting the plaintiff is entitled to re-
 lief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557
 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plead-
 ings made by pro se litigants are “held to less stringent
 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Er-
 ickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A complaint filed
 pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Id. (quoting Estelle v.
 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
     The Court of Federal Claims liberally construed Mr.
 Peamon’s complaint as alleging an illegal exaction claim.
 S. Appx. 6–7. To maintain a claim for illegal exaction, Mr.
 Peamon was required to plead sufficient facts to show the
 money was “‘improperly exacted or retained’ by the govern-
 ment.” Casa de Cambio Comdiv S.A. de C.V. v. United
 States, 291 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting
 United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 401 (1976)). Mr.
 Peamon does not contest the validity of his debt owed to
 the VHA, and thus the Court of Federal Claims properly
 assumed the debt was valid. S. Appx. 8; see generally id.
 at 10–12. The existence of Mr. Peamon’s valid debt to a
 government agency, the VHA, means the garnishment of
 his Social Security benefit payments is not an illegal exac-
 tion. See Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d
 1564, 1572–74 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that plaintiff
 must establish the exaction was contrary to law); see also
 Gulley v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 405, 420–21 (Fed. Cl.
 2020) (same). Mr. Peamon’s complaint, even under a lib-
 eral construction, does not allege sufficient facts to plausi-
 bly state a claim for relief. We therefore affirm the Court
 of Federal Claims’ dismissal.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.