In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1816C (Filed: October 19, 2020) ) CARL L. GULLEY, ) RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); RCFC ) Plaintiff, 12(h)(3); RCFC 10(a); RCFC 41(b); ) mootness; failure to prosecute; Tucker ) v. Act claims; illegal exaction claims; ) money-mandating claims; takings ) THE UNITED STATES, claims; federal education loan ) discharge. ) Defendant. ) Carl L. Gulley, Little Rock, AR, pro se. Russel J. Upton, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the briefs were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Tara Hogan, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. OPINION AND ORDER SOLOMSON, Judge. On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff, Mr. Carl L. Gulley, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint with this Court. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). The Complaint alleges primarily that “the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Education [‘DOE’], intentionally or willfully deprived [Mr. Gulley] of part of his Social Security Disability Income (‘SSDI’)” and improperly used it to pay for Mr. Gulley’s overdue, government student loans. Id. at 4. On January 17, 2020, the Court granted the government’s motion for extension of time to file its answer. ECF No. 10. On February 19, 2020, the Court granted Mr. Gulley’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ordering that it be filed on or before March 9, 2020. ECF No. 11. The Court subsequently extended the time for Mr. Gulley to file his amended complaint, to and including March 25, 2020. ECF No. 12. The Court further instructed the government to file its answer to the original Complaint if Mr. Gulley failed to file his amended complaint in a timely manner “and [that] no further leave to amend the complaint [would] be granted absent good cause shown.” Id. Mr. Gulley never filed an amended complaint. On May 11, 2020, the government filed its motion to dismiss Mr. Gulley’s original Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). ECF No. 14 (“Def. Mot.”). Mr. Gulley, however, never filed a response to the government’s motion. Id. at 3 n.1. For the reasons explained below, the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Gulley’s Complaint hereby is GRANTED and Mr. Gulley’s Complaint is DISMISSED. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In March 2016, Mr. Gulley received two Federal Direct Student Loans totaling $6,333.00, to attend Diesel Driving Academy. ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl. Exh.”) at 3; see Def. Mot. at 2. When Mr. Gulley failed to repay his student loans in a timely manner, his loans were declared in default. Def. Mot. at 2. Thereafter, Mr. Gulley’s DOE student loan servicer, Nelnet, transferred his account to DOE’s Default Resolution Group (“DRG”). Compl. Exh. at 3. On April 15, 2019, Mr. Gulley’s loans first appeared in DOE’s Debt Management Collection System database for possible collection. Id. On April 18, 2019, DOE informed Mr. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals