United States of America v. Sam et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING re 14 Request filed by Joseph Sam, signed by Judge Lauren King. (cc defendant via USPS) (RE)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:23-mc-00074-LK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
HEARING

JOSEPH SAM, also known as JOSEPH
EARLYSTAR CLARK,
v.

Defendant,

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE,
Garnishee-Defendant.

18
19

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Joseph Sam’s request for a hearing. Dkt.

20

No. 14. Mr. Sam contends that the Government did not comply with statutory requirements when

21

it moved the Court to issue a writ of continuing garnishment to garnish property due and owing to

22

Mr. Sam from garnishee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. Id. at 1. Having considered the submissions

23

of the parties and the relevant law, the Court DENIES Mr. Sam’s request for hearing.

24
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING - 1

I.

1

BACKGROUND

2

On October 13, 2023, the Court granted the Government’s Second Amended Application

3

for Writ of Continuing Garnishment to garnish property due and owing to Mr. Sam from the Upper

4

Skagit Indian Tribe. Dkt. No. 9 at 1–2. The Government served Mr. Sam with that application, the

5

order, and other relevant documents on December 29, 2023. Dkt. No. 13 at 1.

6

On January 22, 2024, Mr. Sam filed a request for a telephonic hearing, contending that the

7

Government has not complied with the statutory requirements for the issuance of the writ of

8

continuing garnishment. Dkt. No. 14 at 1. Specifically, Mr. Sam states that he has (with one

9

exception) made payments in accordance with the payment plan set forth for him in the judgment

10

in his criminal case. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 8-1 at 10 (showing timely payments). In other words,

11

Mr. Sam appears to argue that the Government’s attempted garnishment is inconsistent with his

12

payment plan. See Dkt. No. 8-1 at 9 (providing that payment of criminal monetary penalties is

13

“due immediately,” and that during Mr. Sam’s period of imprisonment, any unpaid amount shall

14

be paid in the amount of “no less than 25% of [his] gross monthly income or $25.00 per quarter,

15

whichever is greater”).

16

On January 30, 2024, the Court ordered the Government to respond to Mr. Sam’s request

17

for hearing. Dkt. No. 15 at 2. The Government timely responded on February 5, 2024, stating that

18

“Mr. Sam has not invoked a valid basis for his objection, his objection lacks merit, and the Court

19

should overrule the objection without setting a hearing.” Dkt. No. 16 at 2. The Government also

20

indicated that it “seeks to enforce Mr. Sam’s restitution obligation by garnishing his tribal per

21

capita distributions from the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe[.]” Id. at 1.

22

II. DISCUSSION

23

A judgment debtor may contest garnishment proceedings prior to the garnishee’s answer

24

by filing a request for a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d). Where the underlying judgment was
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING - 2

1

not by default, a judgment debtor can only obtain relief from garnishment on two bases: (1) a valid

2

claim of exemption or (2) the Government’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements for

3

the garnishment process. Id. § 3202(d)(1)–(2). A judgment debtor is not entitled to a hearing where

4

he fails to object on one of these two bases. See, e.g., United States v. Beebe, No. C18-78-TSZ,

5

2018 WL 571763, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 26, 2018) (denying defendant’s request for hearing

6

because “[d]efendant d[id] not raise any of the issues enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) sufficient

7

to warrant a hearing”).

8

Mr. Sam requests a hearing solely on the basis that the Government failed to comply with

9

the statutory requirements for the garnishment process. See Dkt. No. 14 at 1. Mr. Sam specifically

10

contends that the Government’s attempted garnishment is inconsistent with his payment schedule.

11

See Dkt. No. 8-1 at 9. Mr. Sam’s argument fails on two grounds.

12

First, the Government’s garnishment of his tribal per capita distributions from the Upper

13

Skagit Indian Tribe is not inconsistent with his payment plan. As the Government observes, the

14

payment schedule “sets a floor, not a ceiling” for Mr. Sam’s restitution payments and does not

15

limit the Government’s ability to recover more by garnishing his tribal per capita payments. See

16

Dkt. No. 16 at 2. “Courts have almost uniformly recognized a ‘crucial distinction’ between cases

17

. . . in which the court orders the defendant to pay only through a payment schedule with no

18

requirement of immediate payment in full, and cases,” like Mr. Sam’s, “in which the judgment

19

specifies that the amount owed is due in full on the date of judgment, regardless of whether the

20

judgment includes a back-up schedule of payments to cover any unpaid amounts.” United States

21

v. Williams, 898 F.3d 1052, 1055 (10th Cir. 2018)); see also Dkt. No. 8-1 at 9 (providing that

22

payment of the total criminal monetary penalties is due immediately, with a back-up schedule for

23

“[a]ny unpaid amount”). In the latter scenario, the schedule of payments does not bar the

24

Government’s ability to institute civil collections proceedings. See United States v. Behrens, 656
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING - 3

1

F. App'x 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Shusterman, 331 F. App'x 994, 996–97 (3d Cir.

2

2009).

3

Second, Mr. Sam does not support his claim that the Government failed to comply with

4

any statutory requirement for issuance of the writ of garnishment. Mr. Sam does not identify—nor

5

does the Court discern—any non-compliance with the statutory requirements for issuance of a writ

6

of garnishment. 1

7

Mr. Sam has raised no cognizable objections that may be considered at a hearing on the

8

writ of continuing garnishment. See 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d)(1)–(2) (“The issues at [a non-default

9

judgment] hearing shall be limited [ ] (1) to the probable validity of any claim or exemption by the

10

judgment debtor; [and] (2) to compliance with any statutory requirement for the issuance of the

11

postjudgment remedy granted[.]”); United States v. Pugh, 75 F. App'x 546, 547 (8th Cir. 2003)

12

(per curiam) (limiting hearing concerning enforcement of judgment to circumstances where debtor

13

has claimed probable validity of exemption or challenged compliance with statutory

14

requirements). The Court therefore declines to set a hearing.
III. CONCLUSION

15
16

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Sam’s request for hearing. Dkt. No. 14.

17

Dated this 9th day of February, 2024.

18

A

19

Lauren King
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24

The Court notes that the property that the Government seeks to garnish—per capita distributions from the Upper
Skagit Indian Tribe—does not constitute “disposable earnings” under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1673(a)(1), because such distributions are not “compensation paid or payable for personal services,” id. § 1672(a).
Therefore, the distributions are not subject to the 25 percent maximum allowable garnishment limitation under 18
U.S.C. § 3613(a)(3). See Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 651–52 (1974).
1

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING - 4