Tony W. Strickland v. Richard T. Alexander
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22060
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Strickland, a disabled worker, received $30,000 in workers’ compensation and later Social Security Disability benefits; he and his wife are joint accountholders and rely on these funds to live.
- Discover obtained a default judgment against Strickland and, through counsel Greene & Cooper (G&C), served a garnishment summons on Chase, which froze Strickland’s Chase account (which held exempt workers’ compensation funds).
- Chase notified Strickland that federal law required a hold and warned that some benefits may be exempt; G&C’s notice did not identify exemptions.
- Chase paid the garnished funds into the Gwinnett County court registry; Strickland filed a statutory claim for exemption and, shortly before a scheduled hearing, Discover voluntarily dismissed the garnishment and the funds were returned.
- Strickland sued (while funds were frozen) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the Georgia Constitution seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the county clerk Alexander (and others) alleging Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute failed to afford adequate notice or procedures.
- The district court dismissed Strickland’s claims against Alexander for lack of standing; the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the statute’s constitutionality after finding standing and that the claim was not moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief against clerk (Alexander) | Strickland: substantial likelihood of future garnishment because he and his wife remain judgment debtors, subsist on disability income, and have multiple creditors and accounts | Alexander: duties are ministerial; future injury speculative and not fairly traceable to him | The court held Strickland has Article III standing (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability); ministerial duties can be fairly traceable when they cause freezing of funds |
| Causation (is freezing traceable to clerk?) | Clerk’s docketing and issuance of garnishment summons directly caused attachment and future similar acts would cause future injury | Alexander: actions are purely ministerial and thus not the cause of constitutional injury | Court: clerk’s issuance/docketing were the immediate cause; ministerial nature does not defeat causation |
| Mootness / "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Strickland: garnishments are short-lived and he faces substantial likelihood of recurrence (still a judgment debtor; wife has judgments; other accounts exist) | Alexander: return of funds and dismissal moots controversy | Court: not moot — proceedings are too short to litigate fully and there is reasonable expectation of recurrence; exception applies |
| Whether to decide constitutionality of Georgia’s garnishment statute now | Strickland: statute may lack adequate notice/procedures—seek merits ruling | Alexander: urged merits on appeal | Court: declines to decide merits on appeal; remands for district court to consider constitutionality with opportunity for State (Attorney General) to participate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing’s three constitutional requirements)
- Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999) (standing/mootness analysis in post-judgment garnishment context)
- Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1980) (garnishment challenge not moot where reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (mootness as standing in time frame)
- Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2004) ("capable of repetition, yet evading review" application)
- Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (U.S. 2011) (durational limits relevant to mootness review)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (appellate courts should not decide issues not passed on below)