David Dwayne Cassady v. Steven D. Hall, 892 F.3d 1150

Cassady, a Georgia inmate, sued corrections officer Hall under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for physical and sexual assault; a jury awarded Cassady $200,000 and the District Court entered judgment.
Cassady moved for a writ of garnishment directing Georgia (via GDAS) to pay to him funds Georgia would otherwise pay Hall under a state General Liability Agreement (GLA) that may indemnify officers.
He invoked 28 U.S.C. § 3205 (garnishment) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 as federal authority and argued Georgia waived sovereign immunity for contractual indemnities.
The District Court denied the garnishment, holding Georgia hadn’t waived sovereign immunity for this type of garnishment and that § 3205/R.69 did not authorize garnishing state indemnity funds.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit treated the garnishment motion as a “suit” implicating Eleventh Amendment immunity and considered waiver and congressional abrogation arguments.
The Court affirmed: Georgia did not waive immunity for this garnishment in federal court, and federal law did not clearly abrogate state sovereign immunity for the requested relief; Cassady must pursue relief in Georgia courts if available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a federal garnishment motion against a State is a “suit” under the Eleventh Amendment	Cassady: procedural form irrelevant; court can order garnishment under § 3205 or Rule 69	Georgia: Eleventh Amendment protects it from such proceedings	Held: Motion is a “suit” in substance; Eleventh Amendment applies
Whether Georgia waived sovereign immunity for garnishment of state-paid indemnity under the GLA	Cassady: Georgia’s constitutional/contract waivers permit garnishment of contractual indemnities	Georgia: No statute expressly waives immunity for this garnishment in federal court	Held: No waiver in Georgia law for this type of garnishment in federal court
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 3205 or the Federal Rules abrogate state immunity or authorize garnishment here	Cassady: § 3205 or Rule 69 allow federal courts to order garnishment	Georgia: § 3205 applies only to the United States; Rule 69 adopts state procedure and cannot override sovereign immunity	Held: § 3205 does not apply (it governs U.S. enforcement); Rule 69 cannot abrogate immunity or supply independent authority
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to order garnishment of state funds	Cassady: District Court may order garnishment under cited federal provisions	Georgia: Court lacks jurisdiction due to Eleventh Amendment immunity and absence of statutory authorization	Held: District Court lacked jurisdiction; affirm denial of garnishment

Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (Congress must make unmistakably clear intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity)
Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (look to essential nature and effect of proceeding to determine if it is a "suit" under the Eleventh Amendment)
Carpenters Pension Fund of Baltimore v. Md. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 721 F.3d 217 (4th Cir.) (motions for garnishment against a state resemble suits and can implicate Eleventh Amendment)
Schopler v. Bliss, 903 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir.) (state waiver in state courts does not itself waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court)
Barnes v. Zaccari, 669 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.) (Georgia’s waiver of sovereign immunity in state contract suits does not extend to federal court)
Robinson v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 966 F.2d 637 (11th Cir.) (state agencies and arms of the state are covered by Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (defining a "suit" as pursuit of some claim, demand, or request)