Kerber v. Carver County Farm Service Agency

Background

Wayne Kerber filed a claim against the Carver County Farm Service Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). He alleged that, on October 22, 2015, the Farm Service Agency entered into a Conservation Reserve Program contract concerning farmland that Kerber co-owned with his sibling. Kerber alleged that his sibling forged his signature on that contract and other documents. He further alleged that he asked the Farm Service Agency and the USDA for information about the documents, but they denied that his signature was forged and refused to provide the requested information.

Kerber claimed that he was harmed because he had to return the land to agricultural production after it had been fraudulently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. He initially filed the claim and summons in Minnesota Conciliation Court, seeking $5,530 plus $85 in filing fees and costs. The defendants removed the case to federal court because a United States agency was a defendant. Kerber proceeded without a lawyer, did not respond to the motion to dismiss, and did not attend oral argument.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or failure to state a claim. The court first considered jurisdiction because jurisdictional issues must be decided before the merits of a case.

Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity generally protects the federal government and its agencies from lawsuits unless Congress has clearly waived that protection. A plaintiff suing the United States or a federal agency must show both a waiver of sovereign immunity and a law granting the court authority to hear the case.

The court determined that both defendants were protected by sovereign immunity. It explained that the Farm Service Agency is an agency within the USDA and that it delivers the Conservation Reserve Program through local offices, including the Carver County office. Kerber had not identified an applicable statute waiving the USDA’s or the Farm Service Agency’s sovereign immunity for his claims.

The court also stated that, even if Kerber’s allegations were treated as a tort claim, he had not alleged that he filed an administrative claim with the USDA before filing the lawsuit. The court noted that any attempt to appeal an adverse agency decision would also appear to fail for lack of exhaustion because Kerber had not alleged that he pursued administrative remedies.

Disposition

Because the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not reach the defendants’ alternative argument that Kerber failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Judge Michael J. Davis ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED and that the matter was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on sovereign immunity. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.