USA v. Jackson

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Gregory Jackson,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Joyride Logistics, LLC,
Garnishee.
No. CR-13-50199-001-PHX-DGC
ORDER
Defendant Gregory Jackson has filed a motion for modification of writ of
garnishment. Doc. 11. The Court will deny the motion.
I. Background.
In August 2011, Defendant was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to
pay $32,1997.45 in restitution for theft of government property. Doc. 1-2. On March 25,
2026, the government served a writ of garnishment on Defendant’s employer, Joyride
Logistics, LLC (“Garnishee”). Doc. 8. The writ directed Garnishee to withhold 25% of
Defendant’s non-exempt earnings. Id. at 2. Garnishee answered the writ on March 30,
2026, explaining that Defendant was employed by Garnishee on the date the writ was
served and that Garnishee anticipated owing Defendant earnings on a weekly basis.
Doc. 10.
Case 2:13-cr-50199-DGC Document 13 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. Discussion.
Defendant asserts in his motion that a garnishment of 25% of his earnings, as sought
by the government, would create a financial hardship. Doc. 11 at 1-2. Defendant requests
a reasonable payment arrangement and a hearing on the motion. Id. at 3.1
The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308,
governs the use of writs of garnishment to recover a judgment on a debt. Under § 3202(d)
of the FDCPA, “[f]inancial hardship, in and of itself, does not warrant relief because it is
not a permissible defense to garnishment[.]” United States v. Thede, No. CR-19-50100-
001-TUC-JGZ (BGM), 2020 WL 1952595, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2020); see also United
States v. Moussa, No. CR-01-01136-002-PHX-SMM, 2022 WL 4112073, at *2 (D. Ariz.
July 29, 2022) (“Financial hardship is not a ‘permissible defense to raise under 28 U.S.C.
§ 3202(d).’” (citation omitted)); United States v. Ray, No. CR-20-00780-001-PHX-DJH,
2022 WL 1289304, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2022) (“A claim of financial hardship is not a
valid reason under § 3202(d) to contest garnishment.”). The Court will deny Defendant’s
motion because he seeks to modify the garnishment based solely on financial hardship.
Section 3205(c)(5) of the FDCPA provides that, “[w]ithin 20 days after receipt of
the [garnishee’s] answer, the judgment debtor or the United States may file a written
objection to the answer and request a hearing.” 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). Defendant is not
entitled to a hearing under § 3205(c)(5) because he does not object to Garnishee’s answer,
and instead seeks a modification of the government’s writ of garnishment. See Doc. 11 at
1-2; see also United States v. Pettigrew, No. 3:10-CV-2142-M, 2011 WL 900545, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2011) (“Defendant has not filed an objection to the garnishee’s answer
as contemplated by § 3205(c)(5), only to the garnishment itself, and she is therefore not
entitled to a hearing under § 3205(c)(5).”); United States v. Page, No. 1:13CV119, 2013
WL 2945070, at *5 (N.D.W. Va. June 14, 2013) (“[T]he defendant’s request for hearing
1 Defendant does not contend that the government failed to follow the procedural
requirements for a writ of garnishment and the record reflects that the garnishment is
proper.
Case 2:13-cr-50199-DGC Document 13 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was not in response to the garnishee’s answer, so he is not entitled to a hearing under
[§ 3205(c)(5)].”).2
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for modification of writ of garnishment
(Doc. 11) is denied.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2026.
2 The government notes, correctly, that Defendant does not claim any statutory
exemption from garnishment that might warrant a hearing. Doc. 12 at 3 (citing United
States v. Christensen, No. CR14-08164-PCT-DGC, 2022 WL 3647831, at *4 (D. Ariz.
Aug. 24, 2022) (“[A]ny hearing on garnishments must be limited to determining the
validity of claimed exemptions [and] the government’s compliance with statutory
requirements . . . . Defendant claims no statutory exemption and does not contend that the
government has failed to satisfy statutory requirements.”)).
Case 2:13-cr-50199-DGC Document 13 Filed 05/29/26 Page 3 of 3