A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a civil lawsuit brought against the U.S. Department of Education by a former student regarding loan servicing. However, this battle may be far from over due to procedural errors.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case filed by Jason Christopher Long, citing a jurisdictional hurdle known as the “derivative jurisdiction doctrine.”
Long, who attended Saint Augustine University—a historically Black university in Raleigh, North Carolina—between 2004 and 2009, originally filed his complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in March 2025.
READ: Florida Man Arrested: Process Server Threatened, Phone Smashed During Violent Confrontation
Dispute Over “Irregularities,” Not Fraud
While earlier court summaries referenced fraud, Long’s complaint specifically challenges what he describes as “procedural irregularities and unauthorized servicing activity” involving his federal student loan records.
Long emphasized that his allegations do not concern criminal conduct, but rather the Department of Education’s compliance with statutory requirements and the proper handling of his loan documentation. He alleges that DMD Financial Services was “not an authorized educational servicer” under the Higher Education Act, yet the Department processed his loans through the entity without proper consent.
A Procedural Dismissal
In the opinion issued Tuesday, Judge Contreras ruled that the case could not proceed because it began in the wrong court. Under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, because the local D.C. Superior Court lacked the authority to hear federal claims against a U.S. agency, the federal court could not “acquire” jurisdiction simply because the case was moved there.
The dismissal was based solely on this jurisdictional technicality and did not rule on the actual merits of Long’s claims regarding the loan servicing.
READ: Hacker Extradited: Ukrainian National Charged In Russian Cyber Plot Targeting U.S. Water Systems
Plaintiff Claims Lack of Notice, Files to Vacate
Following the ruling, Long asserted that his due process rights were violated. He has filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), arguing that the court issued its decision without him ever being properly served with the Department of Education’s dispositive motions.
Despite the court record noting opposition filings, Long states that he had been actively litigating the case and had filed notices informing the court that he had not been served—filings he says were not addressed before the dismissal. He argues the ruling was made without his full knowledge or a fair opportunity to respond to the government’s arguments.
“This dismissal does not reflect a ruling on the merits of my claims,” Long stated, signaling that the dispute over the handling of his Saint Augustine University student loans remains unresolved.
This story has been updated with clarifications and quotes from Mr. Long.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
