Parker v. United States

ORIGl~J.\L FILED Jfn tbe Wniteb ~tates Qeourt of jfeberal Qelaitns MAR 24 2011 U.S. COURT OF No. 16-264C FEDERAL CLAIMS (Filed Under Seal: January 31, 2017) (Reissued for Publication: March 24, 2017)* ************************************* CARL PARK.ER, Individual and * * Administrator for the Estate of Gary L. Parker, * RCFC 12(b)(l); RCFC 12(b)(6); Subject * Matter Jurisdiction; Failure to State a Plaintiff, * Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; * Pigford Litigation; Section 741; Consent v. * Decree; Equal Credit Opportunity Act; * Contractual Takings; Unenacted THE UNITED STATES, * Legislation; 2008 Farm Bill * Defendant. * ************************************* Carl Parker, Ashburn, GA, pro se. Daniel S. Herzfeld, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge In this case, plaintiff Carl Parker, individually and as administrator for the estate of Gary L. Parker, seeks damages related to (1) the purported failure of the Farm Service Agency ("FSA") of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to abide by the consent decree in the Pigford class-action discrimination litigation and (2) ongoing discrimination by the USDA. Defendant United States moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which this court can grant relief. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendant's motion to dismiss and denies Carl Parker's motion for summary judgment as moot. * The court provided the parties with an opportunity to suggest redactions to this ruling. In a February 28, 2017 status report, defendant indicated that no redactions were necessary and that it had been unsuccessful in attempting to communicate with Carl Parker regarding proposed redactions. To date, Carl Parker has not suggested any redactions. Accordingly, the court reissues this decision without redactions. I. BACKGROUND A. Pigford I Litigation On August 28, 1997, three African-American farmers filed a putative class action against the USDA to obtain redress for a long pattern of discrimination against African-American farmers in its credit and benefit programs. 1 Pigford v. Glickman ("Pigford I"), 185 F.R.D. 82, 86-89 (D.D.C. 1999), affd, 206 F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Although the USDA had a process in place for resolving discrimination complaints, the system had been effectively nonexistent for over a decade prior to initiation of the lawsuit, leaving many wronged farmers without relief. Id. at 88. This systemic discrimination, which violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA''), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f (2012), led to a significant decline in the number of African-American farmers throughout the United States. Pigford I, 185 F.R.D. at 87. An initial class was certified on October 9, 1998. Id. at 90. Prior to 2010, the statute oflimitations on alleged ECOA violations was two years. 15 U.S.C. § 169le(f) (2006); see Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1085(7), 124 Stat. 2083, 2085 (2010)(increasing the statute oflimitations on ECOA claims from two years to five years). On October 21, 1998, Congress enacted the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. A, sec. lOl(a), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681 to 2681-50 (1998). Section 741 of that Act ("Section 741") waived the statute oflimitations for actions filed within two years of its passage-i.e., until October 21, 2000-if a complaint had been filed with the USDA before July 1, 1997, alleging nonemployment discrimination between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996. Id.§ 741, 112 Stat. at2681-30 to -31. Section 741 also permitted aggrieved farmers to obtain an administrative hearing on the record in lieu of pursuing a judicial remedy. Id. On January 5, 1999, a newly certified class in Pigford I was defined as: All African American farmers who ( 1) farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996; (2) applied to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) during that time period for participation in a federal farm credit or benefit program and who believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race in USDA's response to that application; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1, 1997, regarding USDA's treatment of such farm credit or benefit application. 1 The court derives the facts in this section from Carl Parker's complaint ("Comp!."), the exhibits attached to the complaint ("Comp!. Ex."), the appendix to defendant's motion to dismiss ("Def.' s App."), the attachments to defendant's reply in support of its motion to dismiss ("Def.' s Reply Attach."), filings in related litigation, and various judicial and administrative decisions. -2- 185 F.R.D. at 92. Following settlement negotiations, id. at 89-92, a consent decree was approved as "fair, adequate, and reasonable" on April 14, 1999, id. at 86. 2 Its purpose was to ensure that "in their dealings with USDA, all class members receive full and fair treatment that is the same as the treatment accorded to similarly situated white persons." Def.'s App. A2. The estimated value of the settlement at the time was $2.25 billion, constituting the "largest civil rights settlement in the history of this country." Pigford I, 185 F.R.D. at 95. Under the terms of the consent decree, class members could opt out of class treatment within 120 days of entry of the consent decree. Def.' s App. A5. Otherwise, class members were generally required to submit a claim package within 180 days of entry of the consent decree-i.e, by October 12, 1999---