United States v. Miguel, et al.

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; FINAL ORDER for Writ of Continuing Garnishment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/12/2017. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

No. 1:17-mc-00013-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

IRMA MIGUEL,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.

FINAL ORDER FOR WRIT OF
CONTINUING GARNISHMENT

16

Criminal Case No.: 1:96-CR-05110-REC

17

(Doc. No. 13)

18
19

On February 16, 2017, plaintiff United States of America filed an application for a writ of

20

continuing garnishment against defendant and judgment debtor Irma Miguel’s (“Miguel”) non-

21

exempt disposable earnings due to the United States from garnishee Stanislaus County. (Doc.

22

No. 3.) As set forth in the plaintiff’s application, the United States sought and obtained the writ

23

to collect the $224,307.42 Miguel owed as of February 15, 2017, pursuant to a restitution order

24

and statutory assessment entered against her in case number 1:96-cr-05110-REC on August 26,

25

1996, and a statutorily authorized litigation surcharge. (Doc No. 3 at 2.)

26

The Clerk of the Court issued the writ and notice of instructions to judgment debtor,

27

which the United States served on Stanislaus County and Miguel. (Doc. Nos. 4–6.) Stanislaus

28

County served and filed its acknowledgement of service and answer of garnishee (the “answer”)
1

1

to the writ, which acknowledged that Miguel was an employee of Stanislaus County and

2

identified her pay. (Doc. No. 8.) Miguel did not file a timely claim of exemption to the proposed

3

garnishment of the wages owed to her by Stanislaus County, did not object to the answer of

4

Stanislaus County, did not request a hearing, and did not otherwise present an objection to the

5

court to the United States’ garnishment action.

6

On April 11, 2017, the United States requested that the court issue findings and

7

recommendations for a final order of continuing garnishment against the property and account(s)

8

of Miguel (“the request”), which was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

9

Local Rule 302(c)(7). (Doc. No. 9.)

10

On April 28, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

11

recommending that this court grant the United States’ request for a final order of continuing

12

garnishment. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on Miguel and

13

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of

14

service. (See Doc. Nos. 13–14.) The period for filing objections has passed, and no objections

15

have been filed.

16

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

17

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

18

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In accordance with

19

28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7), after the garnishee files an answer, and if no hearing is requested with the

20

required time period, the court shall promptly enter an order directing the garnishee as to the

21

disposition of the judgment debtor’s property. Good cause appearing from the review of the court

22

files, the United States’ request for a writ of continuing garnishment will be granted.

23

Accordingly,

24

1. The April 28, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full;

25

2. The United States’ request for a final order of continuing garnishment (Doc. No. 9) is

26

granted;

27

3. Garnishee Stanislaus County is ordered to pay at least monthly to the Clerk of the United

28

States District Court, 25 percent of Miguel’s non-exempt disposable wages, earnings,
2

1

commissions, bonuses, and compensation until: (a) the judgment including interest and

2

surcharge amount of $223,631.25 is paid in full; (b) further order of this Court; or (c)

3

Stanislaus County no longer has custody, possession or control of any property belonging

4

to defendant and judgment debtor;

5

4. Stanislaus County is further ordered to provide the United States with written notice if the

6

amount or form of compensation to Miguel changes while this order is in effect or if

7

Stanislaus County no longer has custody, possession, or control of Miguel’s property;

8

5. Within twenty days of the filing of this final order, Stanislaus County shall deliver to the

9

Clerk of the United States District Court all amounts previously withheld by Stanislaus

10

County pursuant to the writ of garnishment. Stanislaus County shall also provide the

11

United States with a written accounting, by pay period, of the amounts withheld Miguel’s

12

wages during the period from service of the writ to entry of this final order; and

13

6. The instrument of payment must be made in the form of a cashier’s check, money order or

14

company draft, and made payable to the “Clerk of the Court” and delivered to the United

15

States District Court, Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Room 4-200,

16

Sacramento, California 95814. Stanislaus County shall also include the criminal docket

17

number (Case No. 1:96-CR-05110-REC) on the payment instrument.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 12, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3