Allen v. Allen
| Decision Date | 01 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 8-2244-C-2. |
| Citation | 291 F. Supp. 312 |
| Parties | Ardis ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. Richard L. ALLEN, Defendant. Iowa Medical Service, Garnishee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Bailey C. Webber, Ottumwa, Iowa, for Ardis Allen.
James P. Rielly, U. S. Atty., for Iowa Medical Service.
This ruling is predicated upon plaintiff Ardis Allen's motion to remand and motion by Iowa Medical Service, garnishee herein, to dismiss garnishment proceedings and quash garnishment.
The instant controversy originated when a separate maintenance action was commenced in the District Court of Iowa in and for Davis County, wherein Ardis Allen was the plaintiff and Richard L. Allen was the defendant. The State Court entered a decree requiring Richard L. Allen to pay to Ardis Allen certain monthly amounts. Richard L. Allen is a medical doctor who has treated qualifying patients pursuant to the Medicare Program of the Social Security Act. The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has entered into a contract with Iowa Medical Service, garnishee herein, for the evaluation and processing by the latter of Medicare claims in Iowa, certain of which are alleged to be owing to Richard L. Allen.
Subsequent to rendition and entry of the above State Court judgment, plaintiff Ardis Allen caused to be served upon Iowa Medical Service a notice of garnishment whereby plaintiff sought to reach funds that would be due Richard L. Allen for medical services rendered to Medicare recipients. The garnishee has removed such garnishment action to this Court, and the issues now presented for disposition are: (1) whether the garnishment action must be remanded to State Court because improperly removed, and (2) whether the garnishment action is a suit against the United States which may not be maintained without consent of the sovereign.
The garnishment action was properly removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1442(a) (1). There can no longer be doubt that garnishment is a "civil action" for purposes of removal. See Randolph v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 260 F.2d 461 (8th Cir. 1958); Stoll v. Hawkeye Cas. Co., 185 F.2d 96, 22 A.L.R.2d 899 (8th Cir. 1950). This decided, it only remains to be asked whether Iowa Medical Service is a "person acting under" "any officer of * * * any agency" of the United States, and, if so, whether the garnishment action in State Court was "for any Act under color of office." See 28 U.S. C.A. Section 1442(a) (1). The Court finds that Iowa Medical Service, at least for purposes of removal, was acting under the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and that the garnishment action was commenced against such corporation because of its action under color of such office. Sound policy requires the availability of a federal forum for adjudication of the legal status of persons who colorably have been acting under federal direction. Removal under 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1442 is, moreover, an independent ground of removal which Congress has steadily enlarged. See 1A Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 0.164(1), at 827 (2d ed. 1953). This circumstance, considered together with the clear intent of Congress to otherwise restrict federal removal jurisdiction, indicates that 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1442 is not to be given a strict interpretation. It follows that the instant case was properly removed by garnishee, Iowa Medical Service, to this Court.
The Court further finds that this garnishment action is a suit instituted against the United States without its consent. The question is one of first impression. It has, of course, long been settled that a suit against a governmental agency is a suit v. the United States requiring its consent to be sued. See New Haven Public Schools v. General Services Administration, 214 F.2d 592 (7th Cir. 1954); Love v. Royall, 179 F. 2d 5 (8th Cir. 1950); United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Hunter, 171 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1949). And it is also clear that the waiver of sovereign immunity may be effectuated only by act of Congress. See In re Greenstreet, Inc., 209 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1954); Stulce v. United States, 128 F.2d 327 (8th Cir. 1942). It is thus the plaintiff's duty in the instant case to affirmatively demonstrate the requisite consent and her place within the terms of same. See Kirk v. Good, 13 F.Supp. 1020 (E.D.Mo. 1929).
These rules are clear. They do, however, antecede the central question which must be decided: whether the Iowa Medical Service, for purposes of garnishment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Williams
...Courts § 38 (2d ed. 1970). 8 A garnishment proceeding is "a civil action" within the meaning of section 1442(a)(1). Allen v. Allen, 291 F.Supp. 312 (S.D.Iowa 1968). See Randolph v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 260 F.2d 461 (8th Cir. 1958); Stoll v. Hawkeye Casualty Co., 185 F.2d 96 ......
-
Saffron v. Department of the Navy
...83 S.Ct. 999, 1006-1008, 10 L.Ed.2d 15, 24-25 (1963); Ogletree v. McNamara, 449 F.2d 93, 99-100 (6th Cir. 1971); Allen v. Allen, 291 F.Supp. 312, 314 (S.D.Iowa 1968).26 See text supra at note 23.27 See, e.g., Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 503, 510-511, 87 S.Ct. 1177, 1181-......
-
Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.
...Ass'n, 587 F.Supp. 887 (S.D.N.Y.1984); see also Kuenstler v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 292 F.Supp. 532 (C.D.Cal.1968); Allen v. Allen, 291 F.Supp. 312 (S.D.Iowa 1968). Intermediaries perform the day to day work of administering an ongoing federal program under strict official oversight. For......
-
Mount Sinai Hosp. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Weinberger
...not Section 205(h), defeated jurisdiction in the other two decisions. Johnson v. Johnson, 332 F.Supp. 510 (E.D.Pa.1971); Allen v. Allen, 291 F.Supp. 312 (S.D.Iowa 1968). 17 S.Rep.No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1 (1965), in U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 1995 (1965). 18 By comparison, ......