United States District Court, W.D. Washington
S. Zilly United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant/Judgment Debtor
Christopher Mark Williams's pro se Request for
Hearing, docket no. 6, on the Writ of Continuing Garnishment
Issued against his employer. For the reasons stated herein,
Mr. Williams's request for hearing is DENIED.
4, 2007, judgment was entered against Mr. Williams in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington in Seattle. United States v. Christopher Mark
Williams, No. 06-CR-0415 RSL, docket no. 32. Pursuant to
the judgment, Mr. Williams was ordered to pay $247, 220.51 in
criminal restitution and a $200 special penalty assessment.
Id. As of June 21, 2017, a balance of $204, 922.87
remains outstanding. Writ of Continuing Garnishment, docket
27, 2017, the Government filed an Application for Writ of
Garnishment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c), docket no.
1. The Court issued the Writ of Garnishment on June 29, 2017,
docket no. 3, and that same day the Government served on Mr.
Williams a copy of the application, writ, notice of
garnishment, and instructions to the judgment debtor, by
first class mail, docket nos. 4, 5. On July 7, 2017, Mr.
Williams filed a request for hearing form, docket no. 6,
contending that the government failed to comply with the
statutory requirements for the issuance of the writ because
the Government did not provide Mr. Williams with
Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”),
28 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., provides “the
exclusive civil procedures” for the United States to
obtain satisfaction of a judgment in a criminal proceeding
that imposes a fine assessment, penalty or restitution in
favor of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §
3001(a); see also United States v. Duran, 701 F.3d
912, 915 (11th Cir. 2012). The FDCPA provides the United
States with several mechanisms to satisfy a judgment, one of
which is a writ of garnishment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 3202,
3205. Pursuant to § 3205, a “court may issue a
writ of garnishment against property (including nonexempt
disposable earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial
nonexempt interest and which is in the possession, custody,
or control of a person other than the debtor, in order to
satisfy the judgment against the debtor.” 28 U.S.C.
commencement of an action to recover property under the
FDCPA, the Government must prepare, and the clerk of court
must issue, notice to the judgment debtor following
substantially the form set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(b).
28 U.S.C. § 3202(b); see also United States v.
Tripodis, 2016 WL 5389142, at *2 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 27,
2016) (quoting United States v. Peters, 783 F.3d
1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2015)). The Government must then serve
the judgment debtor with the notice, the writ issued by the
Court, and the Government's application therefor,
together with instructions for objecting to the
garnishee's answer and for obtaining a hearing. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 3202(c) & 3205(c)(3). Thereafter, the
judgment debtor has two opportunities to object and obtain a
hearing. The judgment debtor (1) may move to quash the writ
by requesting a hearing within 20 days of receiving the
notice required by § 3202(b), 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d);
or (2) may object to the garnishee's answer and request a
hearing thereon within 20 days of receipt of the
garnishee's answer, 28 U.S.C. §
3205(c)(5). “Although the [FDCPA] states that
the court ‘shall hold a hearing' at the
debtor's request, courts have denied a hearing where the
debtor did not object based on one of the issues specified in
28 U.S.C. § 3202(d), where the objection is plainly
without merit, or where the objection was simply a matter of
statutory interpretation.” United States v.
Bruneau, 2013 WL 6409518, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2013)
(quoting United States v. Miller, 588 F.Supp.2d 789,
797 (W.D. Mich. 2008)); see also United States v.
Marchand, 2017 WL 2857722, at *2 (M.D. Ala. May 4, 2017)
(noting that a “defendant is not entitled to a hearing
where he fails to show that the government did not comply
with a statutory requirement, or fails to present a colorable
hearing under § 3205(c)(5) is not justified because Mr.
Williams has raised no objection to the garnishee's
answer. Mr. Williams is likewise not entitled to a hearing
under § 3202(d) because he makes no claim of exemption
and has failed to identify any deficiency in the
Government's compliance with statutory requirements
regarding notice. 28 U.S.C. § 3202; see also
Tripodis, 2016 WL 5389142, at *2. The notice issued by
the clerk is substantially in the form required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 3202(b), docket no. 4, the Government properly served
Mr. Williams with the documents required by 28 U.S.C.
§§ 3202(c) & 3205(c)(3), docket no. 5, and Mr.
Williams clearly received actual notice of the writ, given
that he returned the request for hearing form that was
attached to the clerk's notice, docket no. 6. Mr.
Williams has not shown that his objection to the notice
provided by the Government has potential merit, and
accordingly, Mr. Williams's request for hearing is
 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) provides
that, if a judgment debtor timely requests a hearing, the
issues at such ...