Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Federal jurisdictionAnti-Injunction ActPrejudgment garnishment28 U.S.C. § 1343(3)42 U.S.C. § 198328 U.S.C. § 2283

Facts

Mrs. Dorothy Lynch directed her employer to deposit part of her weekly wages into a credit union savings account. Household Finance Corporation sued her in Connecticut state court on an allegedly unpaid promissory note for $525 and, before serving her with process, garnished her savings account under Connecticut's summary prejudgment garnishment statute. Lynch then sued Connecticut sheriffs who levy on bank accounts and creditors who invoke the statute, alleging she received no prior notice and no opportunity to be heard. She claimed the statutes violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses and sought declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1983 and § 1343(3).

Issue

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) confer federal jurisdiction over a § 1983 suit alleging wrongful deprivation of property rights under color of state law, or is it limited to personal-liberty claims? Also, does 28 U.S.C. § 2283 bar a federal injunction against Connecticut's prejudgment garnishment procedure when that garnishment is initiated and maintained without judicial participation or supervision?

Rule

Section 1343(3) does not distinguish between personal liberties and property rights; it provides jurisdiction for § 1983 claims alleging deprivation, under color of state law, of constitutional rights including property rights. Section 2283 bars injunctions only against proceedings in a state court, and an extrajudicial prejudgment garnishment carried out without judicial order, court supervision, or court control is not such a proceeding.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, Priya Desai alleges that county licensing inspectors, relying on a state ordinance, padlocked her small storage facility without prior notice and prevented her from accessing tools and inventory worth $4,200. She sues the inspectors in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a deprivation of property without due process and invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).

What is the strongest argument that the federal district court has jurisdiction under § 1343(3)?

Explanation. The majority held that § 1343(3) is not confined to so-called personal liberties. It covers § 1983 claims alleging unconstitutional deprivations of property under color of state law. The Court rejected the personal-rights/property-rights distinction and emphasized that the right to enjoy property free from unlawful deprivation is itself a protected personal right. (Derived from Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (n.d.).)