The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-15620•Franklin Carl Paulus v. U.s. Department of Education
13-15620Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 3, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANKLIN CARL PAULUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15620
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00903-GMN-
VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Franklin Carl Paulus appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action challenging the Department of Education’s denial of his
request to discharge his federally guaranteed student loans. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lawrence v. Dep’t of Interior, 525
FILED
DEC 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Higher Education Technical
Amendments of 1991 (“HETA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, applies to Paulus’s
educational loans, and that Michigan’s statute of limitations does not apply to the
Department’s debt collection efforts against Paulus. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2)
(the United States may at any time bring an action for the repayment of a loan
obtained under Title IV of the Higher Education Act and assigned to the
Department); United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1994) (HETA
retroactively abrogated all statutes of limitations on actions to collect defaulted
federally guaranteed student loans).
We do not consider Paulus’s arguments regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause
and the Tenth Amendment because they were raised for the first time on appeal.
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-15620 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.