Richard Peamon v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 P EAMON, Baltimore, MD, pro se.
BORISLAV K USHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, L ISA L EFANTE D ONAHUE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and C UNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1029 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

PEAMON v. US 2
P ER 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).
D ISCUSSION
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: 2 Filed: 07/25/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

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.
Case: 23-1029 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 07/25/2023

-- 3 of 3 --