Williams v. U.S. Secretary of Education

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 challenging the decision of the U.S. Secretary of Education and U.S. Department of Education (collectively, “Agency”) to collect on Williams’s defaulted student loans by garnishing his wages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We *672 review de novo, Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 460 F.3d 1125 , 1132 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that the Agency’s decision to garnish Williams’s wages was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law where documents in the administrative record prove the existence, amount, and past-due status of the debt. See id. (“Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may set aside the decision of an administrative agency .... only if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ ” (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A))).

The district court also properly determined that the pre-garnishment hearing comported with due process, and the undisputed evidence demonstrates that…