# LEUTHE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419735

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 28, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419735

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
AARON LEUTHE, )
)
) 2:24-CV-00714-MJH
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant,

OPINION
Plaintiff, Aaron Leuthe, pro se, commenced this proceeding by filing a Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and attaching a Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), against
Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Human Resources (DHS), alleging violations of his civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the False Claims Act under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and also citing
to 38 U.S.C. § 511, 42 U.S.C. § 659, and 38 U.S.C. § 5301.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and attached Complaint
(ECF No. 1), the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, but the Court
will, sua sponte, dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
First, the Court must determine whether a litigant is indigent within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion and his affidavit in support, the Court finds
the Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to pay the required filing fee. Thus, he will be granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but the Court will proceed to screen Mr. Leuthe’s Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Background
Mr. Leuthe alleges that DHS sent “incoming withholding demands” to the Department of
Veteran Affairs. He avers that “DHS is aware they are banned from requesting withholdings of
[his] VA funds.” Mr. Leuthe maintains DHS has made a “fraudulent request for moneys not

due.” He seeks relief in the form of a “Public apology to the Department of Veterans Affairs and
to all veterans currently being harassed, immediate policy change within DHS, more federal
DHS oversight, and any action the court sees as just.”
Within the same week as the filing of the instant matter, Mr. Leuthe has filed two other
lawsuits (2:24-cv-686 and 2:24-cv-715). From these three filings, the Court can reasonably infer
that each lawsuit derives from Mr. Leuthe being ordered to pay child support from his veteran’s
benefits. Mr. Leuthe’s suits appear to be under the belief that state agencies, such as DHS,
cannot attach his veterans benefits pursuant to several enumerated federal statutes including
under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the False Claims Act.
III. Relevant Standards

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an
immune defendant.
IV. Discussion
Mr. Leuthe’s claims generally fail, because despite his Complaint, the statutes governing
the Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans’ benefits do not provide for blanket protection
from state courts and states agencies from attaching veterans’ benefits for the purposes of paying
child support. In addition to this general principle, Mr. Leuthe’s claims are generally
unavailable against DHS as a state agency because the enumerated statutes citated by Mr. Leuthe
cannot support a claim and also because, DHS is immune from suit.
First, the False Claims Act imposes civil liability upon “[a]ny person” who, inter alia,
“knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States

Government ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). The
act does not subject a state or state agency to liability for suits brought by private individuals.
Vermont Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787 (2000). Therefore, Mr.
Leuthe cannot maintain a False Claims Act claim against DHS, a state agency.
Second, Mr. Leuthe cannot support a Civil Rights Section 1983 action under the premise
that DHS violated 38 U.S.C. § 5301. In relevant part, 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) states that “[p]ayments
of benefits ... under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration ... made to, or an
account of, a beneficiary ... shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any
legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.” 38 U.S.C. §
5301(a). The United States Supreme Court has rejected that Section 5301 applies to child

support. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987)
In Rose a Tennessee state court ordered a disabled veteran to pay $800 per month in child
support following the dissolution of his marriage despite that his only means of income consisted
of veterans' disability payments. Id. at 623–34. The veteran objected, citing the exemption
protections of Section 5301(a)2 and arguing that only the Veterans Administration had the
authority to order him to use any portion of his disability benefits to satisfy his child support
obligation. Id. at 624. The state court rejected his argument and the veteran appealed. The issue
before the Supreme Court on appeal was, inter alia, whether Section 5301(a) preempted the state
court's jurisdiction to order the veteran to use his disability benefits to satisfy his child support
obligation. Id. The Supreme Court reviewed the legislative history of Section 5301(a) and
determined that the statute had two purposes: to “avoid the possibility of the Veterans’
Administration ... being placed in the position of a collection agency” and to “prevent the
deprivation and depletion of the means of subsistence of veterans dependent upon these benefits

as the main source of their income.” Id. at 630 (citing S.Rep. No. 94–1243, pp. 147–48 (1976),
U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1976, pp. 5241, 5369, 5370). The Court concluded that
“[n]either purpose” was defeated by allowing the state court to hold the veteran in contempt for
failing to satisfy his child support obligations. The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress
clearly intended veterans’ disability benefits to be used, in part, for the support of veterans’
dependents. Id. at 630–31, 635. Therefore, it is well-established by United States Supreme
Court precedent that Mr. Leuthe cannot claim an exemption to paying child support from his
veterans benefits under Section 5301(a).
Third, even if Mr. Leuthe had a civil right’s claim against DHS, state entities like the
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services are protected from suit by two overlapping

doctrines. First, Section 1983 “does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy
against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties.” Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 66 (1989). “The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its
immunity, or unless Congress has exercised its undoubted power under § 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment to override that immunity.” Id. (internal citation omitted) (citing Welch v. Tex. Dep't
of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472-73 (1987)). “Congress, in passing § 1983, had
no intention to disturb the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity,” id., and Pennsylvania has
not waived its immunity. Downey v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing
42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8521(b)). As an administrative department created by the State, the Department
of Human Services is therefore shielded from Plaintiff's suit by sovereign immunity. Pennhurst
State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“It is clear, of course, that in the
absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the
defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”). Second, “governmental entities that are

considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes”—such as the Department of
Human Services—are not “persons” subject to suit under Section 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 70-71.
Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a Section 1983 claim against the Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services because of Eleventh Amendment Immunity.
Finally, as regards the other statutes cited by Mr. Leuthe, 38 U.S.C. § 511 and 42 U.S.C.
§ 659, neither support a cause of action against DHS. 38 U.S.C. § 511 evinces no congressional
“intent to create [either] a private right [or] a private remedy.” See Burnes v. Smith, No. 3:18-
CV-00608, 2018 WL 3472821, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. July 17, 2018) (holding that Section 511 “does
not create a private right of action”); International Primate Prot. League v. Institute for Behav.
Rsch., Inc., 799 F.2d 934, 940 (4th Cir. 1986) (collecting cases involving statutes that do confer

private causes of action). On the contrary, the statute reflects Congress's intent to prevent
ancillary benefits litigation in the district courts by entrusting benefits decisions to the Secretary,
see 38 U.S.C. § 511(a), and confining judicial review to the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims and the Federal Circuit. Mr. Leuthe here, at most, has alleged the violation of a federal
law, but not a federal right. Mr. Leuthe, in citing a federal statute that confers no private right of
action, has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Finally, 42 U.S.C. § 659
explicitly permits the garnishment of disability benefits to satisfy child support and alimony
obligations. Alexander v. O'Malley, 2024 WL 1637292, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 16, 2024). Thus,
said statute would not support Mr. Leuthe’s position; in fact, it cuts against it.
Accordingly, all of Mr. Leuthe’s claims and citations are ripe for dismissal as none can
support any cause of action against DHS.
V. Conclusion
Upon consideration of the foregoing, this Court will grant Mr. Leuthe’s Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1). The Clerk will be directed to file the Complaint (ECF
No. 1-1). Furthermore, upon review of Mr. Leuthe’s Complaint, the Court, sua sponte, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e) finds that Mr. Leuthe cannot support a claim against DHS.
Therefore, Mr. Leuthe’s Complaint will be dismissed. Because it is clear on the face of Mr.
Leuthe’s allegations that he cannot maintain a claim against DHS, no leave to amend will be
granted. A separate order will follow.
DATED this 28" day of May, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
Merlyn. ¥Alorane
MARILYN J?HO
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419735. Public record. Not legal advice.