Tony W. Strickland v. Richard T. Alexander

Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 1 of 28
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15483
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-02735-MHS
TONY W. STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RICHARD T. ALEXANDER,
Clerk of Court of the State Court of
Gwinnett County, Georgia,
GREENE & COOPER, LLP,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA,
Defendants - Appellees,
DISCOVER BANK,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 20, 2014)
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 2 of 28
Before WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, *
District Judge.
ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant Tony W. Strickland’s limited funds include those that he
obtained from a workers’ compensation settlement after suffering a permanent
disability on the job and those that he receives from his Social Security disability
payments. He keeps these funds in two bank accounts that he shares with his wife,
who, like Strickland, is entirely dependent on the funds in the accounts to live.
Luckily for Strickland, the law protects workers’ compensation funds and Social
Security disability payments from garnishment.
But that did not stop one of Strickland’s creditors from having the clerk of
court for the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, issue a garnishment
summons that resulted in the freezing of Strickland’s workers’ compensation funds
for almost four months before Strickland’s creditor finally conceded that
Strickland’s funds were exempt from garnishment and agreed to the dissolution of
the hold on his funds. Now Strickland seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute to prevent that same thing
from happening again to him and his wife, who remain judgment debtors. Because
it is substantially likely that Strickland and his wife’s exempt funds soon will again
*
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 3 of 28
be the subject of a garnishment summons, we reverse the district court's dismissal
of Strickland’s lawsuit for lack of standing and remand for consideration of
whether Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute is constitutionally sound.
I.
In 2004, Strickland beat nasal cavity cancer. Because of his condition,
however, he was unable to work as many hours as he could before he fell ill. He
soon found himself unable to pay all of his bills, and in 2005, he defaulted on his
Discover Bank (“Discover”) credit-card balance. In 2009, to recover the balance
owed, Discover, represented by Greene & Cooper, LLP (“G&C”), filed suit against
Strickland in State Court for Fulton County, Georgia. (Civil Action No.
09VS171247).
Also in 2009, Strickland injured his back at work, leaving him permanently
disabled. In February 2011, he received a $30,000 workers’ compensation
settlement to compensate him for his injury. He deposited these funds into a newly
formed JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) savings account and listed his wife
as a joint accountholder so that she would be able to access the funds should his
health further deteriorate. The Stricklands periodically drew upon these funds to
help pay for living and healthcare expenses. In the fall of 2011, Strickland also
began receiving Social Security Disability benefits.
3
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 4 of 28
On April 4, 2012, Discover obtained a default judgment against Strickland
for the monies he owed in the principal amount of $13,849.93, plus interest of
$2,138.64, attorney’s fees of $1,613.61, and court costs of $147.50.1
Approximately three months later, on July 6, 2012, Discover, again represented by
G&C, filed a garnishment action against Strickland’s Chase funds to enforce its
default judgment in the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.
At that time and to this day, Defendant-Appellee Richard T. Alexander was
and is the Gwinnett County clerk of court. Accordingly, Alexander’s office
generated the garnishment summons to be served upon Chase (the garnishee) in
accordance with Georgia’s statutory requirements. The summons, served on July
11, 2012, advised Chase to “hold all [of Strickland’s] property, money and wages,
except what is exempt,” but did not provide an explanation as to what types of
property are exempt from garnishment (such as unemployment benefits, Social
Security Disability benefits, and workers’ compensation benefits). Georgia does
not require garnishment summonses to include such information. Pursuant to the
summons, Chase promptly put a hold on Strickland’s account.
Strickland learned of the garnishment on July 16, 2012, when he received a
certified letter from G&C and a first-class letter from Chase. G&C’s letter notified
1
These amounts add up to $17,749.68, although the record refers to the total amount that
Discover sought to garnish as $18,096.65, and $18,302.65. We need not concern ourselves with
the actual sum sought by Discover in the garnishment proceeding because it does not bear on the
issues in this appeal, and, in any case, Discover filed a satisfaction of judgment on November 27,
2012.
4
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 5 of 28
Strickland that a garnishment proceeding had been instituted against his property
and provided the case caption and amount sought, but it did not mention that
Strickland’s funds might be exempt from garnishment.
For its part, Chase’s letter explained that the bank had recently received the
garnishment summons, and that, as a result, it was required by federal law to place
a hold on Strickland’s account. It further advised Strickland that he would be
unable to access the funds in his account and informed him of potential bank fees
that he might become liable for, the need to consult with an attorney, and the way
in which the funds could be released. Unlike the G&C letter, however, the Chase
letter also disclosed to Strickland that certain forms of property might be exempt
from garnishment, such as unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and
workers’ compensation benefits. Therefore, the Chase letter recommended that
Strickland “immediately contact the judgment creditor’s attorney” if he believed
that his funds might be exempt.
Upon receipt of these letters, Strickland went to the nearest Chase branch,
where he was told that the remainder of his workers’ compensation settlement
funds, totaling $15,652.67, had in fact been frozen. Following the suggestion
contained within Chase’s letter, Strickland contacted G&C to try to persuade it to
release the garnishment, but to no avail. Strickland then became “upset, felt
nauseous, and began to cry and shake,” because, according to Strickland, the
5
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 6 of 28
frozen funds were vital to the Stricklands’ ability to pay for living and healthcare
expenses.
On August 20, 2012, Chase answered the garnishment summons by paying
into court $15,652.67, which constituted the entire remainder of Strickland’s
workers’ compensation funds. These funds were retained by the clerk’s office
throughout the pendency of the garnishment action.
Acting through counsel, Strickland first tried to resolve the matter without
resorting to the formal claims process. When he was unsuccessful, Strickland then
filed a statutory claim to the funds on September 4, 2012, on the grounds that the
funds were exempt from garnishment under Georgia law. 2 Discover opposed the
claim, and a hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2012. The day before the
hearing, however, Discover voluntarily dismissed the action.
An order to release the funds was entered on October 24, 2012. On October
29, 2012, the court clerk’s office issued a check for the return of Strickland’s
workers’ compensation funds, which Strickland’s counsel received on November
2, 2012. Discover filed a satisfaction of judgment on November 27, 2012.
2
See O.C.G.A. § 34-9-84 (“No claim for [workers’] compensation under this chapter
shall be assignable, and all compensation and claims therefor shall be exempt from all claims of
creditors.”).
6
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 7 of 28
II.
Strickland filed the present action on August 8, 2012, while Discover’s state-
court garnishment action was still pending and when his funds were therefore still
frozen. At that time, Chase had not yet filed its answer in the state-court
garnishment action, so Strickland was unable to assert any direct claim for the
funds.
Strickland also set forth the following pertinent allegations in his complaint:
27. Mr. Strickland is still a judgment debtor to
[Discover] . . . .
28. This judgment is likely to remain unsatisfied for
some time because Mr. Strickland and his wife
currently subsist on a modest income, consisting
only of Mr. Strickland’s monthly check for Social
Security Disability, in the amount of $1,300.00.
29. This account is likely to be the subject of a future
garnishment because Ms. Strickland, the joint
account holder, has judgments against her, as well
as other debts that are likely to be reduced to
judgment. Furthermore Mr. Strickland has another
bank account, which contains only his Social
Security Disability income, which may be subject
to garnishment by Discover. Neither Mr.
Strickland nor his wife is likely to satisfy any of
their debts in the near future.
Compl. ¶¶ 27–29. In light of these facts, Strickland brought two claims against
Discover, Chase, G&C, and Alexander: one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acting
under color of state law and unconstitutionally depriving Strickland of his property
7
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 8 of 28
in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and one under the Georgia Bill of Rights for depriving
Strickland of his property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Georgia
Constitution. In short, he alleged that Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment
statute, O.C.G.A. § 18-4-60, et seq., failed to provide him with sufficient notice of
the garnishment and exemptions, and it failed to establish procedures complying
with due-process requirements that would allow him to challenge the garnishment
by claiming an exemption and having his funds returned.
Strickland sought various forms of relief, including the following: (1) a
declaration that the specified portions of the garnishment statute are
unconstitutional; (2) injunctive relief against Alexander, Discover, G&C, and
Chase to restrain them from using the allegedly unconstitutional garnishment
process against Strickland’s property and from freezing any exempt funds in the
future; and (3) monetary damages against Discover, G&C, and Chase for the
injuries that Strickland alleged that he incurred as a result of his Chase funds
having been frozen.3
3
Strickland alleged that he “suffered great hardship” due to his inability to draw upon his
workers’ compensation funds for nearly four months. For instance, Strickland has a heart
condition for which he takes medication. Failure to take the medication every day puts him at
greater risk for a stroke. By the end of July 2012, Strickland’s funds had run out, and because he
could not access his workers’ compensation funds, he could not purchase his medicine for three
days. Although he did not suffer a stroke or other cardiac episode during this three-day hiatus,
Strickland alleged that the increased health risk that he faced while not taking his medicine
caused him and his family great emotional distress. Additionally, in October 2012, Strickland
8
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 9 of 28
After Discover dissolved the underlying debt and dismissed its garnishment
claim, it was dismissed from this action with prejudice, by consent. The trial court
then turned its attention to the outstanding motions to dismiss filed by Chase and
G&C, respectively. On April 11, 2013, the trial court granted Chase’s Rule
12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., motion, concluding that Chase had not acted “under the
color of state law” for purposes of Strickland’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. In the
same order, the court determined that Strickland lacked standing to continue
pursuing injunctive and declaratory relief against G&C and similarly sua sponte
dismissed without prejudice Strickland’s claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief against Alexander.
The dismissal order, however, preserved Strickland’s claims for damages
against G&C, holding that Strickland had stated a claim for violation of his due-
process rights. The parties then presented a record upon cross motions for
summary judgment stipulating that Strickland had suffered damages in the amount
of $10,000 for his inability to access his workers’ compensation funds for nearly
four months as a result of the garnishment action initiated by G&C. Concluding
that G&C was protected by a “good faith” defense and that Strickland had failed to
developed a blood clot in his hand that required surgery. He delayed surgery to address the
problem, however, because he could not afford the hundreds of dollars that the procedure would
cost since he could not access his workers’ compensation funds. Eventually, because his hand
became so swollen that he could not use it, and because his forearm had turned black, his family
decided that Strickland must schedule the surgery, anyway, and worry about payment later.
9
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 10 of 28
satisfy its burden of proof to affirmatively show G&C’s bad faith, the court granted
G&C’s motion for summary judgment on October 29, 2013. Strickland then lodged
this timely appeal against Defendant Alexander only.
III.
We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss. Amnesty Int’l v.
Battle, 559 F.3d 1170, 1176 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In conducting our
review, we “accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe the
facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). We also consider de novo whether a plaintiff has
standing. Id. (citation omitted).
IV.
In this appeal, we must decide three questions: (1) whether Strickland had
standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant-Appellee
Alexander; (2) assuming that Strickland had standing, whether the release of
Strickland’s funds and the satisfaction of the judgment creditor’s claim mooted
Strickland’s claim against Defendant-Appellee Alexander; and (3) assuming that
Strickland had standing and that his claim has not been mooted, whether various
provisions of Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute satisfy Fourteenth
Amendment and Georgia state constitutional due-process requirements. We
address each question in turn.
10
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 11 of 28
A. Justiciability
Article III of the Constitution extends the jurisdiction of federal courts to
only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
559, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). The case-or-controversy restriction imposes
what are generally referred to as “justiciability” limitations. Socialist Workers
Party v. Leahy, 145 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Fla.
Azalea Specialists, 19 F.3d 620, 621-22 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing Flast v. Cohen,
392 U.S. 83, 94-95, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1949-50 (1968))). Justiciability doctrine serves
two purposes: (1) it aims to prevent the judiciary from infringing on the powers of
the executive and legislative branches, and (2) it seeks to ensure that the judiciary
considers only those matters presented in an adversarial context. Id. (citing Fla.
Azalea Specialists, 19 F.3d at 621-22).
Justiciability doctrine is composed of “three strands”: standing, ripeness,
and mootness. See Leahy, 145 F.3d at 1244. The failure of any one of these
strands can deprive a federal court of jurisdiction. This case involves both
standing and mootness issues.
1. Standing
At an “irreducible constitutional minimum,” standing imposes upon a
plaintiff the requirement to make the following three showings:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in
fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest
11
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 12 of 28
which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b)
“actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or
‘hypothetical[;]’”
(2) there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of—the injury
has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged
action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of]
the independent action of some third party not
before the court[;]” and
(3) it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely
“speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by
a favorable decision.”
Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S. Ct. at 2136 (citation omitted)).
a. Injury in Fact
Where the plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, as opposed to
damages for injuries already suffered, for example, the injury-in-fact requirement
insists that a plaintiff “allege facts from which it appears there is a substantial
likelihood that he will suffer injury in the future.” Malowney v. Fed. Collection
Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1346 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). This is
because injunctions regulate future conduct only; they do not provide relief for past
injuries already incurred and over with. See Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d
1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1994). So a plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief
must allege and ultimately prove “a real and immediate—as opposed to a merely
hypothetical or conjectural—threat of future injury.” Id. (citation omitted).
12
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 13 of 28
In considering whether Strickland had satisfied this requirement, the district
court concluded that Strickland did not because it found that the risk that
Strickland would suffer future injury was too remote. The court reached this
conclusion based in large part on Malowney, 193 F.3d 1342, a case where the
plaintiffs challenged Florida’s post-judgment garnishment statute. While we can
understand how the district court reached this conclusion, in Malowney, we
expressly chose not to consider whether facts as they exist in Strickland’s case
would satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. Id., 193 F.3d at 1347 n.6. Now that
we are faced with these facts, we conclude that Malowney and its brief discussion
of Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1980), warrant the conclusion that
Strickland has alleged sufficient facts in this case to demonstrate a substantial
likelihood that he will suffer garnishment proceedings in the future under
Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute.
In Malowney, a bank froze the plaintiffs’ checking-account funds in
accordance with a writ of garnishment. 193 F.3d at 1344. At the time of
garnishment, the only funds in the account were Social Security Disability benefits
and United States Army retirement benefits, both of which are exempt from
garnishment under federal law. Id. at 1345. The plaintiffs sued the clerk of a
circuit court that issued the writ, seeking only declaratory relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Id.13
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 14 of 28
Specifically, they sought a judgment declaring notice provisions of Florida’s post-
judgment garnishment statute unconstitutional in part because those provisions
failed to afford the plaintiffs adequate due process. Id.When we reviewed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss, 4
we concluded that “the amended complaint [did] not contain any allegations which
could reasonably support a finding that the Malowneys are likely to be subject to
future injury from the application of the statute they challenge.” Id. at 1347. The
absence of several facts underpinned this determination.
First, we noted that the complaint did not allege that the Malowneys had
checking-account funds likely to be subject to garnishment in the future, or even
that they were still judgment debtors. Id. For these reasons, we declined to
speculate that the Malowneys were, or soon would become, indebted to a different
judgment creditor and, as a result, would have a garnishment issued against them
under the challenged statute. Id.Second, we emphasized that both the creditor that obtained the garnishment
summons against the Malowneys’ bank account and the bank that froze the
Malowneys’ account were both on notice of the exempt status of the Malowneys’
funds as a result of the Malowneys’ case. Id. at 1347-48. We doubted that they
4
The district court in Malowney concluded that Florida’s post-judgment garnishment
statute satisfies due process and is constitutional because it provides sufficient notice and an
adequate opportunity to be heard. Malowney, 193 F.3d at 1346. We did not reach this issue on
appeal because we held that the claim should have been dismissed since the plaintiffs lacked
standing. Id.
14
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 15 of 28
would risk liability over wrongful garnishment again in the future. Id. These facts
made the likelihood of a recurrence of the attempted garnishment of the
Malowneys’ exempt funds weak and deprived the Malowneys of standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 1348.
In reaching this conclusion in Malowney, we were careful to distinguish the
Third Circuit’s decision in Finberg, 634 F.2d 50. Malowney, 193 F.3d at 1347 n.6.
In Finberg, a widow whose sole source of income was Social Security retirement
benefits, sought to have the application of Pennsylvania’s post-judgment
garnishment statute declared unconstitutional after the statute was used to initiate
garnishment proceedings on Finberg’s bank accounts that held her Social Security
benefits. 634 F.2d at 51-52. The Third Circuit determined that Finberg’s claim
had not been mooted as a result of Finberg’s recovery of all of the funds that had
been attached through the garnishment proceedings because Finberg had
demonstrated “a ‘reasonable expectation’ that [she would] be subject to a
recurrence of the activity that [she] challenge[d].” Id. at 55 (citation omitted).
When we discussed Finberg in Malowney, we explained,
Finberg . . . involved different facts, because in that case
the plaintiff remained a judgment debtor, and she was an
elderly widow on a modest income, from which the court
inferred that the judgment was likely to remain
unsatisfied for some time. . . .
15
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 16 of 28
193 F.3d at 1347 n.6. Although we noted that the Third Circuit had considered
Finberg under a mootness analysis, as opposed to a standing analysis, see id., the
fact that the Finberg Court found, under the facts that Finberg alleged, a
“reasonable expectation” that Finberg would be subjected again to garnishment
proceedings on her exempt funds certainly suggests that the Third Circuit would
have found these same facts to have been sufficient to establish standing by
demonstrating a “substantial likelihood” that Finberg would suffer injury in the
form of garnishment proceedings on her exempt funds in the future.
Taking Strickland’s allegations as true and liberally construing the complaint
in his favor (as we must when we review a motion to dismiss), we note that none
of the disqualifying facts that existed in Malowney are present in Strickland’s case,
yet all of the facts, plus more, that allowed Finberg to escape mootness exist in
Strickland’s case. Unlike the Malowneys but similar to Finberg, Strickland alleged
in his complaint that he and his joint-accountholder wife were both judgment
debtors and that his wife had “judgments against her, as well as other debts that are
likely to be reduced to judgment.” Because of this situation, as Strickland points
out in his brief, he is “essentially a sitting duck.” Also unlike the Malowneys but
again similar to Finberg’s situation as construed by the court, Strickland averred
that he and his wife subsist on a very modest income consisting only of
Strickland’s disability benefits, so they were very unlikely to satisfy their
16
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 17 of 28
outstanding debts “for some time.” In addition, and once again in contrast to the
Malowneys, Strickland asserted that, at a bank other than Chase, he had a second
account containing only his Social Security disability income.
All of these facts point strongly to one conclusion: it is substantially likely
that it is simply a matter of time before another judgment creditor seeks to garnish
the monies that the Stricklands have in at least one of their bank accounts. And,
unlike in Malowney, we cannot count on the creditor and the bank to have learned
their lessons that the Stricklands’ funds are exempt. This is so because the
Stricklands have judgments against them from creditors other than Discover, the
creditor involved in this case. And they have a second bank account containing
exempt funds at a bank other than Chase, the bank involved in this case. These
circumstances create a “real and immediate” likelihood of future injury and satisfy
the injury-in-fact requirement for seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
b. Causation
We also find that Strickland has met the second standing requirement: that
the injury suffered is fairly traceable to the defendant. This “causal connection”
must “link the injury to the complained-of conduct” of the defendant and is not
satisfied if the injury results instead from “the independent action of some third
party not before the court.” Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of
Ga., 691 F.3d 1250, 1257 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S.
17Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 18 of 28
154, 167, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1163 (1997) (quotation marks omitted)). In making this
inquiry, we note that “even harms that flow indirectly from the action in question
can be said to be ‘fairly traceable’ to that action for standing purposes.” Focus on
the Family, 344 F.3d at 1273 (citation omitted).
Here, Defendant Alexander is the court clerk with the responsibility to
process garnishments by docketing the garnishment affidavit, issuing the summons
of garnishment, depositing the garnished property into the court registry, and
holding the property. At the time that Strickland filed his complaint, Defendant
Alexander had docketed the garnishment and issued the summons of garnishment.
He was awaiting receipt of the garnished property from Chase and planned to hold
the property until the garnishment action was resolved. Similarly, the next time
that Strickland’s property is the subject of a garnishment action, Alexander will be
required to follow these exact same procedures. So Strickland’s inability to access
his exempt funds will be “fairly traceable” to Alexander’s actions, not to “the
independent action of some third party not before the court.”
Nor, as Alexander suggests, does the fact that “his duties are ministerial in
nature” somehow render Strickland’s injury not fairly traceable to Alexander.
Alexander provides no authority for the proposition that conduct must be
“unlawful” for a resulting constitutional deprivation to be “fairly traceable” to that
conduct, and he similarly identifies no support for the notion that an injury cannot
18
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 19 of 28
be deemed “fairly traceable” to ministerial conduct. We decline to reach such a
conclusion.
In Finberg, the Third Circuit considered whether the prothonotary and
sheriff who issued the writ of execution and served it on the garnishee were proper
defendants in the action. In conducting this analysis, the Third Circuit noted that it
had to determine whether the prothonotary and sheriff “[met] the prerequisites to
adjudication in a federal court.” 634 F.2d at 53. In other words, the court
evaluated whether a causal connection between Finberg’s injury and the
prothonotary and sheriff’s actions existed under standing doctrine.
The Third Circuit concluded that the prothonotary and sheriff’s actions
constituted the “immediate causes of the attachment and freezing of [the
plaintiff’s] bank accounts.” Id. at 54. As the court further explained, “If the rules
that they were executing are unconstitutional, their actions caused an injury to [the
plaintiff’s] legal rights.” Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Third Circuit
expressly rejected the proposition that the requisite causation did not exist because
the prothonotary and the sheriff executed only ministerial duties in issuing and
serving the garnishment. Id. The court reasoned that “the inquiry is not into the
nature of an official’s duties but into the effect of the official’s performance of his
duties on the plaintiff’s rights.” Id.19
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 20 of 28
This case is exactly the same: Alexander’s docketing of the garnishment
affidavit and issuance of the summons of garnishment were the immediate cause of
the attachment and freezing of Strickland’s account, and the requirement that he
execute these ministerial duties in the future when presented with the appropriate
documents means that Alexander will again be a cause of any garnishment that
befalls Strickland. As a result, Strickland’s injury is fairly traceable to Alexander’s
conduct.
c. Redressability
Finally, turning to the third prong of the standing inquiry, it is likely that
Strickland’s injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. A federal court
could declare the Georgia garnishment process unconstitutional or enjoin any
future similar actions that lacked adequate due process protections. Because
Strickland has demonstrated injury in fact, causation, and redressability with
respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief he seeks, Strickland enjoys Article
III standing.
2. Mootness
Having established that a justiciable controversy existed between Strickland
and Alexander at the time that Strickland filed his complaint, we must now decide
whether the controversy became moot when Strickland received his previously
garnished funds from the State Court of Gwinnett County.
20
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 21 of 28
The Supreme Court has often remarked that “the doctrine of mootness can
be described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal
interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must
continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at
189, 120 S. Ct. at 709 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But
mootness and standing “are distinct doctrines that must not be confused.” Sheely v.
MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1189 n.16 (11th Cir. 2007). The
principle difference is that exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist, while they do
not for standing. Id.As relevant here, the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception
to mootness is at issue. Id. This exception applies when “(1) the challenged action
was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration,
and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would
be subjected to the same action again.” Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1308
(11th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We find that
Strickland has satisfied both of these requirements.
First, garnishment proceedings against exempt funds are generally too short
to be fully litigated before the challenged conduct is ceased. As the Third Circuit
explained in Finberg,
Any lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the
attachment would require, at the very least, one year to
21
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 22 of 28
proceed from the filing of a complaint in the district court
to the entry of judgment in this court. The attachment
probably would end within that time with the occurrence
of either of two events: the release of the accounts from
attachment pursuant to claims of exemption, as occurred
here, or the entry of a final judgment in the state court
garnishment action. . . . Neither event should take as
long as one year to occur because the issues and
procedures in a garnishment are relatively simple. . . .
Finberg, 634 F.2d at 56 (citations omitted). In Finberg, the proceedings lasted for
six months. Id.Under Georgia law, garnishment proceedings similarly require less than a
year to complete. Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute generally provides
a garnishee with forty-five days to answer a garnishment summons. O.C.G.A. §
18-4-62(a). The judgment debtor may then file a claim for funds within fifteen
days of the garnishee’s answer. O.C.G.A. § 18-4-85. Therefore, although a court
typically will not rule on any exemptions within sixty days of the commencement
of a garnishment action, it is unlikely that a garnishment action will last longer
than a few months. In this case, less than four months went by between Discover’s
filing of the garnishment action against Strickland and Discover’s dismissal of that
very same action.
While state-court garnishment proceedings are relatively short in duration,
constitutional challenges to statutes in federal court, in contrast, can easily require
more than a year to resolve. The state attorney general may wish to become
22
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 23 of 28
involved in the proceedings, discovery may be appropriate, and the issues raised
may be complex. Additional time, of course, would be required for appellate, and,
if appropriate, Supreme Court review of any district-court decision.
For these reasons, we have held that activities spanning less than one year
are likely to evade review. Bourgeois, 387 F.3d at 1309 (“[W]e conclude that one
year is an insufficient amount of time . . . to adjudicate the typical case.
Consequently, if this issue arises again . . . it is likely to evade review because the
[challenged conduct] will occur before the parties have a final ruling on the merits
from a court of last resort.”). See also Turner v. Rogers, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct.
2507, 2515 (2011) (because periods of incarceration of less than twelve months are
not long enough for a person to challenge the constitutionality of the procedures
used to subject the person to incarceration, where a person can show that he is
likely to suffer future imprisonment of less than twelve months for the same
reason, the case does not become moot upon the prisoner’s release from
incarceration).
Other courts tend to agree with this proposition, particularly in the context of
challenges to garnishment statutes. For example, besides the Third Circuit’s
decision in Finberg, the First Circuit in Dionne v. Bouley, 757 F.2d 1344, 1349 (1st
Cir. 1985), concluded that a challenge to Rhode Island’s garnishment statute was
not moot even if the funds sought to be garnished had been released because “[b]y
23
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 24 of 28
the time a case can be heard and decided in the federal court, the attached funds
will usually have been obtained by the creditor or else released.” Similarly, in
Harris v. Bailey, 675 F.2d 614, 616 (4th Cir. 1982), the Fourth Circuit determined
that a challenge to West Virginia’s garnishment statute was not moot, though the
plaintiff’s funds had been returned to her, because the state’s “brief procedure” was
capable of evading review. Strickland’s challenge to Georgia’s garnishment
statute suffers from the same durational problem: the garnishment proceeding
itself is highly unlikely to outlive the length of time that it takes to resolve the
constitutionality of the statute used to execute the garnishment proceeding. As a
result, Strickland’s challenge to Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute
satisfies the first prong of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” test.
It also satisfies the second prong. We have already concluded in our
analysis of the injury-in-fact requirement under the standing inquiry that a
substantial likelihood exists that Strickland’s funds will again be garnished to
attempt to satisfy a debt against him or his wife that has already been reduced to a
judgment. Certainly, where a substantial likelihood of an event exists, a
“reasonable expectation” does as well. In summary, Strickland’s available funds
consist solely of his exempt workers’ compensation monies and his exempt Social
Security disability payments. His meager income cannot currently or in the near
term satisfy his and his wife’s outstanding debts, some of which have already been
24
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 25 of 28
reduced to judgments. And, because Strickland’s wife is a joint accountholder of
both bank accounts, Strickland’s funds within those accounts are at significant risk
of garnishment. So garnishment proceedings against Strickland are “capable of
repetition.” See also Finberg, 634 F.2d at 55-56 (finding a “reasonable
expectation” that garnishment proceedings against an indebted widow on a modest
income would again occur).
For these reasons, we hold that the release of Strickland’s funds and the
satisfaction of his debt to Discover did not moot Strickland’s claim against
Defendant Alexander and that Strickland’s claim for declaratory and injunctive
relief still presents a live controversy.
B. Constitutionality of Georgia’s Post-Judgment Garnishment Statute
Because Strickland has established that he has standing and his claim is not
moot, we now turn to the constitutionality of Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment
statute. Although the Supreme Court has remarked that the courts of appeals enjoy
discretion to determine what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first
time on appeal, “[i]t is the general rule . . . that a federal appellate court does not
consider an issue not passed upon below.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119-
21, 96 S. Ct. 2868, 2876-77 (1976) (citation omitted). The reason for this is to
ensure that all parties have had an opportunity to offer all evidence they believe
25
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 26 of 28
relevant to the issues so that they will not be surprised when the issues are decided
by final decision on appeal without first having had an opportunity to be heard. Id.In Singleton, for example, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Circuit’s
resolution on the merits of a challenge to the constitutionality of a Missouri statute
was improper and “an unacceptable exercise of [the Eighth Circuit’s] appellate
jurisdiction.” Id. at 119-20, 96 S. Ct. at 2877. In that case, the defendant had filed
only a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of standing and had filed no answer
or other pleading addressing the merits, had stipulated to no facts, had given no
intimation of what defenses, if any, he might have other than that the plaintiffs’
alleged lack of standing, and had limited himself on appeal entirely to the standing
determination. Id.The development of the constitutional issue in this case suffers similarly.
Here, although Defendant-Appellee Alexander filed an answer to Strickland’s
complaint, like the Singleton defendant, Alexander did not substantively address
the constitutionality of the challenged portions of the statute in the district court.
And, while Alexander has briefed the constitutional issue on appeal for the first
time, he is not charged with defending the constitutionality of Georgia’s statutes;
that is the job of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia. Nor, unlike
Georgia’s Attorney General, does Alexander have a real interest in the
constitutionality of the statute at issue here.
26
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 27 of 28
Moreover, based on the record below, it appears that Georgia’s Attorney
General may indeed wish to participate in proceedings relating to the
constitutionality of Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute. Although
Georgia’s Attorney originally declined to intervene in this action after being
provided notice that the matter involved a challenge to the constitutionality of
O.C.G.A. § 18-4-60, he indicated that he intended to monitor the case and that he
might file an amicus brief addressing the constitutionality of the statute. Once the
district court dismissed this action sua sponte for lack of standing, however, the
Attorney General likely believed that no need existed to file an amicus brief
addressing the constitutionality of the statute with our Court. We think that
development of the constitutional issue would benefit from Georgia’s Attorney
General’s involvement, should he elect to participate in the proceedings. We
therefore remand this case to the district court for further proceedings to evaluate
the constitutionality of the challenged portions of Georgia’s post-judgment
garnishment statute, O.C.G.A. § 18-4-60, et seq.
V.
In sum, we hold that Strickland enjoys Article III standing. We further
conclude that Strickland’s claim is not moot but rather presents a live controversy
that is ready for adjudication. Finally, we decline to pass on the constitutionality
of Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute before ensuring that all interested
27
Case: 13-15483 Date Filed: 11/20/2014 Page: 28 of 28
parties have had notice and, if desired, a chance to present all evidence and
argument, and the district court has had an opportunity to examine and consider
that evidence and argument when ruling on the merits. For these reasons, we
reverse the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of Strickland’s claims against
Alexander and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
28