Ward v. Stanislaus

Background

Marc R. Ward, who represented himself, sued Selvi Stanislaus in her official capacity as Executive Officer for the California Franchise Tax Board. Ward alleged that Stanislaus violated his federal rights by executing a levy based on a wage-garnishment order issued by a Contra Costa County superior court concerning unpaid taxes.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office’s Civil Bureau served Wells Fargo, Ward’s employer, with a garnishment writ in April 2023. The withholding of money from Ward’s paycheck began in May 2023. Ward sought damages and an order stopping the tax levy.

Service of Process

The court held that Ward did not properly serve Stanislaus. Ward said he served Jasmine Lee at a Franchise Tax Board field office, but Lee was not the agency’s clerk, secretary, presiding officer, or other head, and was not authorized to accept service for the agency. Stanislaus also did not maintain her usual office at that address.

Ward later filed another proof of service stating that a security guard at Stanislaus’s residence had accepted service and was authorized by law to do so. The court found that proof insufficient to establish valid service. The court also rejected Ward’s argument that mailing the summons to California Attorney General Rob Bonta was enough, explaining that the rule governing service of the summons and complaint, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, applied instead of the rule governing later pleadings and papers.

Because Ward failed to properly serve Stanislaus, the court concluded that Stanislaus’s motion to dismiss was not untimely and dismissed the complaint for failure to serve.

Eleventh Amendment

The court separately ruled that Ward’s damages claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. A suit against a state official in her official capacity is generally treated as a suit against the state. The court stated that California had not waived its immunity from claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute Ward invoked.

The court noted that some claims seeking future-looking orders against state officials may proceed when they challenge an ongoing violation of federal law. However, it held that Ward’s official-capacity claim for damages could not proceed because a state is not treated as a person subject to a § 1983 claim for money damages.

Failure to State a Claim

The court also considered Ward’s request for future-looking relief under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally recognized claim. Ward argued that California statutes governing the amount of wages subject to levy and California tax rates violated the Constitution’s Contract Clause because his wages were paid in Federal Reserve Notes rather than gold or silver coins.

The court held that this theory was unsupported by law. It concluded that Ward had not plausibly alleged that Stanislaus violated a federal right by executing the tax levy. The court therefore dismissed the prospective-relief claim without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Stanislaus’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Ward’s complaint without leave to amend because Ward failed to properly serve Stanislaus, his damages claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and his prospective-relief claim failed to plausibly allege a federal-rights violation. Judge Jacquelyn Corley also denied Ward’s motion for a preliminary injunction.