Cecelia C. Stephens v. United States Department of the Navy

Fourth Circuit

Cecelia C. Stephens v. United States Department of the Navy

589 F.2d 783, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17847

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 1979

Docket77-2621

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 589 F.2d 783 (Cecelia C. Stephens v. United States Department of the Navy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cecelia C. Stephens v. United States Department of the Navy, 589 F.2d 783, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17847 (4th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Virginia courts have entered judgments for the plaintiff-appellant, Mrs. Cecelia Stephens, against her former husband and against the Navy for failing to pay over to her garnisheed sums otherwise payable to him. The debts were properly garnisheed under 42 U.S.C. § 659. The Navy has refused to pay over the monies, however, because a Tennessee court, at the former husband’s request, issued an injunction barring the United States from releasing payments to Mrs. Stephens.

Still seeking relief, Mrs. Stephens has now sued in federal court to enforce her Virginia court judgments. Section 659, however, does not confer federal jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 660 (part of the same statutory scheme specifically providing for federal jurisdiction in other circumstances). And jurisdiction does not lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) since § 659 merely waives the defense of sovereign immunity to state proceedings, while not creating a federal cause of action. Cf. Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 116, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936).

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

We anticipate, however, that the government will move swiftly to resolve this dispute by instituting an interpleader action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1335. See also Stephens v. United States Department of Navy, 586 F.2d 844 (6th Cir. 1978) (Order).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Virginia courts have entered judgments for the plaintiff-appellant, Mrs. Cecelia Stephens, against her former husband and against the Navy for failing to pay over to her garnisheed sums otherwise payable to him. The debts were properly garnisheed under 42 U.S.C. § 659. The Navy has refused to pay over the monies, however, because a Tennessee court, at the former husband’s request, issued an injunction barring the United States from releasing payments to Mrs. Stephens.

Still seeking relief, Mrs. Stephens has now sued in federal court to enforce her Virginia court judgments. Section 659, however, does not confer federal jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 660 (part of the same statutory scheme specifically providing for federal jurisdiction in other circumstances). And jurisdiction does not lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) since § 659 merely waives the defense of sovereign immunity to state proceedings, while not creating a federal cause of action. Cf. Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 116, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936).

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

We anticipate, however, that the government will move swiftly to resolve this dispute by instituting an interpleader action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1335. See also Stephens v. United States Department of Navy, 586 F.2d 844 (6th Cir. 1978) (Order).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 F.2d 783, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecelia-c-stephens-v-united-states-department-of-the-navy-ca4-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack