Sykes v. Bank of America
723 F.3d 399
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Derry Sykes, an SSI recipient, alleged OCSE and NYC HRA (agency defendants) and Bank of America unlawfully restrained his bank account to collect a $27,590 child‑support arrearage.
- Sykes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (SSI anti‑garnishment), due process, equal protection, the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, and the FDCPA; he sought injunctive relief and damages.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), holding that § 659(a) authorized restraint of benefits to enforce child support, that Rooker‑Feldman and the domestic‑relations exception barred jurisdiction, and that Bank of America was not a state actor.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit limited review to the § 407(a) claim (motions panel dismissed other claims as frivolous) and considered whether § 659(a) permits levying SSI benefits and whether jurisdictional doctrines or state‑action principles bar Sykes’s claims.
- The court held SSI is not "based upon remuneration for employment" within § 659(a), reversed dismissal as to the agency defendants, rejected Rooker‑Feldman and the domestic‑relations exception as jurisdictional bars, but affirmed dismissal of Bank of America claims for lack of state action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) permits levy of SSI benefits to satisfy child support | Sykes: § 659(a) allows withholding; his account contained SSI and was restrained unlawfully | Defendants: § 659(a) applies to benefits based on remuneration for employment, not SSI | Held: SSI is not remuneration for employment; § 659(a) does not authorize levy of SSI benefits |
| Whether § 407(a) immunity (anti‑garnishment) bars restraint of SSI | Sykes: restraint violated § 407(a) as applied to SSI | Defendants: § 659(a) (child support exception) overrides § 407(a) for applicable benefits | Held: § 659(a) exception does not reach SSI; § 407(a) claim survives against state actors |
| Whether Rooker‑Feldman or the domestic‑relations exception deprive the federal court of jurisdiction | Sykes: his suit challenges levying conduct, not the underlying support judgment | Defendants: suit effectively attacks state support order; federal courts lack jurisdiction | Held: Rooker‑Feldman inapplicable (no challenge to state judgment); domestic‑relations exception limited to issuing divorce/alimony/custody decrees and does not bar enforcement‑method challenge |
| Whether Bank of America is a state actor under § 1983 for freezing the account | Sykes: Bank knowingly froze SSI funds and is liable under § 1983 | Bank: merely a garnishee acting ministerially under state law; no state action | Held: Bank of America’s compliance was ministerial and remote from the State; not a state actor, so § 1983 claim dismissed against it |
Key Cases Cited
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (domestic‑relations exception limited to issuance of divorce, alimony, custody decrees)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (scope of Rooker‑Feldman doctrine)
- Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981) (purpose and nature of SSI program)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (distinction between private misuse of state statute and state action)
- Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001) (state action test: close nexus/joint participation)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (private conduct considered state action only in limited circumstances)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (state compulsion/joint action principles)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of pleading standard)
- McCahey v. L.P. Investors, 774 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1985) (upholding NY post‑judgment garnishment procedures against constitutional attack)
- Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard of review for sua sponte dismissal)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)