Opinion
4:18-cr-00363-DCN
08-21-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STORMY RAY ADAKAI, Defendant,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Stormy Ray Adakai's Request for Hearing and Claim of Exemptions. Dkt. 41. The Government has filed an opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 42. The Garnishee has filed an Answer. Dkt. 43.
The matter is ripe for review. Because oral argument would not significantly aid its decision-making process, the Court will decide the motion on the briefing. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For the reasons below, the request is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Adakai on one count of Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury. Dkt. 1. Adakai eventually pleaded guilty (Dkt. 21) and the Court sentenced him to 57 months imprisonment with three years of supervised release to follow. Dkts. 31-33. The Court's judgment included restitution and assessments (“monetary penalties”) in the amount of $63,416.95. Dkt. 33.
On February 17, 2023, the United States filed an Application for a Writ of Garnishment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), 3664(m)(1)(A)(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 3205(b)(1) seeking to garnish property in which Adakai has a substantial, nonexempt interest that was is the possession or control of Garnishee, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (the “Tribe”). Dkt. 38. On March 2, 2023, the Court issued a Writ of Continuing Garnishment (“Writ”) (Dkt. 39), and the Clerk issued the Clerk's Notice and Instructions to Debtor of Post-Judgment Garnishment (“Clerk's Notice”) (Dkt. 39-1).
On March 31, 2023, Adakai filed the Claim and Request form, but it was completely blank except for a single check mark indicating a request for a hearing. Dkt. 41.
On April 27, 2023, the Tribes filed an Answer. Dkt. 43. In its answer, the Tribes indicated that, subject to Casino performance and final approval, it was likely Adakai would receive $1,000.00 in revenue distributions on June 1, 2023, and December 1, 2023. Id. at 4. These future per capita gaming distributions-issued by the Tribes to Adakai-are what the Government seeks to garnish. It argues the funds are not exempt from the previously issued Writ.
III. ANALYSIS
The Writ itself explains that “[c]ertain types of property are exempt from this Writ. Exempt property is listed on the list of exemptions in the Clerk's Notice and Instructions to Debtor of Post-Judgment Garnishment”. Dkt. 39, at 3. The Clerk's Notice goes on to explain that “the law may exempt some property from being taken by the United States if you can show that the exemptions apply.” Dkt. 39-1, at 1.
As noted, Adakai did not list any property or exemptions on the Claim and Request Form. Dkt. 41. It is entirely blank except for a check mark next to the “request a court hearing” line. Id. Adakai did not include any other documents with his filing.
There are only three statutory reasons to hold a hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d)(1)-(3). They are limited and involve “the probable validity of any claim of exemption by the judgment debtor,” “compliance with any statutory requirement for the issuance of the postjudgment remedy granted,” and certain other grounds if there was a default judgment. Id.
There is no indication Adakai's request falls under any of the enumerated reasons outlined. As noted, his form is blank. Without more, the Court has no reason to hold a hearing or grant any other relief. United States v. Graham, 2018 WL 1278188, at *3 (D. Idaho Mar. 12, 2018) (“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.”) (cleaned up).
Adakai's Claim and Request is wholly lacking in any detail and the Court will not grant the request or hold a hearing. The Writ remains in full force and effect.
IV. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Adakai's Claim of Exemptions and Request for a Hearing (Dkt. 41) is DENIED.