The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD MILLS, Senior District Judge
The Plaintiff brings this action against a State Agency.
The State of Illinois has not consented to be sued in federal court
pursuant to the claims brought by the Plaintiff.
Nor has Congress abrogated the State's sovereign immunity.
Therefore, this case must be DISMISSED.
Cammille Sorrell alleges that she has been employed as a Legal Investigator at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency since
January 16, 2001. She owes an educational student loan totaling $14,200
to the Illinois Student Assistance Commission ("Defendant" or "ISAC").
Sorrell alleges that the Defendant is a financial aid center which
distributes educational grants, scholarships, loans, and tuition support
within the State of Illinois, and also functions as a collection agency
for payments of its student loans and reports such actions to the major
consumer credit reporting agencies.
Sorrell claims that on July 13, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Texas entered an agreed order requiring
her to make monthly payments of $100 to the Defendant for her student
loan debt. The payments were to commence on November 1, 1998, and
continue monthly until the loan was paid in full. The order provided that
no interest would accrue as long as the payments were timely made, and
that Sorrell was no more than 60 days delinquent on any one payment.
Sorrell says that on November 19, 2002, she was informed by the
Comptroller of the State of Illinois that $285.23 had been withheld from her paycheck. The reason for this action was that ISAC had advised
the Comptroller that she was in default in paying her student loan.
Sorrell was not notified before the action was taken. After she contacted
the Illinois EPA Payroll Department, the Defendant ISAC, and the
Comptroller, Sorrell alleges that it was determined that the wage
garnishment was in error and that she would be issued a check for the
garnished wages within one week.
Sorrell states that she received a letter in August 2003 from Discover
Personal Loans notifying her that her application for a personal loan had
been rejected. The reasons given for the rejection were collection
activity on her credit reports and past and/or present delinquent credit
obligations. Sorrell says that on October 7, 2003, she sent ISAC a letter
requesting that it revise the information it was reporting to the various
consumer credit reporting agencies. She claims that her credit reports
were erroneously indicating that a $900 balance was past due and her
account was 120 days past due. Sorrell asserts that ISAC responded with a
letter dated October 10, 2003, wherein it stated that it had reported
erroneous account information to the three major credit reporting agencies, and it
would continue to report erroneous information until its billing
statements could be fixed.
Sorrell next alleges that she received from Discover Platinum a credit
card application rejection letter dated October 17, 2003. A primary
reason given for the rejection was collection activity on her credit
report. She claims that she received from People's Bank of Connecticut a
letter dated October 29, 2003, informing her that her application for a
credit card had been rejected. A primary reason given for the rejection
was that her accounts were 90 days past due on her credit report. She
states that she received from US Bank a letter dated October 30, 2003,
wherein she was informed that her application for a credit card had been
rejected. The primary reasons given for the rejection were delinquency in
account payments and collection activity on her credit report.
Sorrell relates that on October 30, 2003, she sent Defendant ISAC a
notice of her intent to pursue legal action because of ISAC's failure to
revise its credit reporting procedures and credit information pertaining
to her account and due to its illegal garnishment of her wages. Sorrell
subsequently asserted this pro se action pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq. ("FDCPA") and the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("FCRA"). She purports to allege three
claims pursuant to the FDCPA and three claims pursuant to the FCRA.