United States District Court, E.D. California
TAMARA L. BOS, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending
before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc.
16). A hearing was held before the undersigned in Redding,
California, on March 8, 2017. Plaintiff appeared pro se.
Bobbie Montoya, Esq., appeared on behalf of defendants. After
hearing argument, the matter was held open to allow plaintiff
to submit additional evidence. Plaintiff submitted her
additional evidence on May 25, 2017, and defendant submitted
a response on June 26, 2017. Thereafter, the matter stood
case proceeds on the first amended complaint (Doc. 6).
Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) United
States Small Business Administration (“SBA”); (2)
Christie Lovell; (3) Carla Donaldson; (4) Sonja Hubbard; and
(5) “Tammy G.” Plaintiff claims that defendants
violated the Privacy Act of 1974 with respect to their
handling of a SBA loan. Based on documents attached to the
complaint, plaintiff is challenging defendants' response
to her inquiries concerning an offset to her monthly social
security benefit check to pay the loan, which had become
allegations as to each individual defendant are as follows:
Christie Lovell - Plaintiff states that she had a
telephone conversation with defendant Lovell in 2010
regarding “Plaintiff's very old micro-loan.”
According to plaintiff, she asked Lovell if she could
“get help” repaying the loan due to limited
income. Plaintiff adds that, though Lovell promised to send
“paperwork to fill out, ” none was ever received.
Plaintiff also states: “Christi Lovell, defendant, did
not inform Plaintiff S.B.A. couldn't attach
Plaintiff's S.S. D.I., thus violating Plaintiff's
civil rights. . . .” Next, plaintiff claims that she
“begged” Lovell for a “hardship, ”
but was informed that no such relief was available. Plaintiff
then informed Lovell that she had been granted an
“Administrative Resolution Approval” in February
2014 which should have resolved the matter. According to
plaintiff, defendant Lovell told her on March 4, 2014, that
the “Administration Resolution Approval” referred
to resolution of the U.S. Treasury's interest collecting
on the loan. Finally, plaintiff states that Lovell
requested documentation of her monthly income and expenses.
Carla Donaldson - Plaintiff claims that she received
a phone call on March 17, 2014, from defendant Donaldson, who
is a supervisor at SBA. According to plaintiff, Donaldson
wanted to know if plaintiff had ever filed for bankruptcy.
Plaintiff states that Donaldson “ordered” her to
re-send documentation of her monthly income and expenses and
that she “would decide on Plaintiff's loan
payback.” Plaintiff also states that Donaldson decided
that SBA would reduce the offset from around $200 per month
to $50 per month. Plaintiff adds that, when asked about the
“Administrative Resolution Approval, ” Donaldson
replied: “I don't know anything about that.”
Plaintiff states that, on March 19, 2014, she asked Donaldson
for a refund for months where more than $50 was deducted from
her social security check for the offset. According to
plaintiff, Donaldson said “no.”
Sonja Hubbard - Plaintiff states that she contacted
defendant Hubbard - who is Donaldson's supervisor at SAB
- on April 21, 2014, to discuss her financial hardship.
According to plaintiff, that conversation included the
HUBBARD: My father is a veteran and he pays his bills.
PLAINTIFF: How dare you raise our flag in my face. My brother
was a West Point graduate, military adviser in Viet Nam, dead
at 58 years old from Melanoma. My Uncle fought in two wars,
and he has since passed also.
Plaintiff claims that Hubbard is liable for “using our
USA's flag in threatening manner.”
“Tammy G.” - Plaintiff states that she
received a phone call sometime in April 2014 from
“Tammy” with the Treasury Department telling
plaintiff not to call “Robert H.” requesting
accommodation for financial hardship. According to plaintiff,
“Tammy” stated: “You do not have a hardship
because you aren't able to pay.” Plaintiff claims
that defendant “Tammy G.” did not have permission
to view her file.
from these specific references to named defendants, plaintiff
refers generally to “all defendants” and
STANDARD FOR ...