govinfo:USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cr-01410-4

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
WO 
 
 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
Michael Edward Luz, 
 
Defendant. 
No. CR-07-01410-001-PHX-JAT 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael Edward Luz’s Request for Hearing 
(Doc. 88) in response to his receipt of a Notice of Post Judgment Garnishment (Doc. 84 -
1). The Government filed a Response and an Amended Response, arguing that Defendant 
failed to properly raise issues under 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d)(1)-(3). (Docs. 89, 90). 
 On June 15, 2022, the Government issued an Application for Writ of Garnishment 
to Barrett Business Services, Inc. and provided a Notice of Post Judgment Garnishment to 
Defendant. (Doc. 84). On June 27, 2022, Defenda nt mailed in a request for a hearing on 
the garnishment. (Doc. 88). On July 5, 2022, Barrett Business Services, Inc. filed a 
Garnishee’s Answer to the Application for Writ of Garnishment. (Doc. 86). 
Because the Defendant is pro se, the Court liberally cons trues Defendant’s request 
as an attempt to invoke an exemption under 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) and request a hearing on 
the same.1 However, the Court agrees with the Government that Defendant’s motion fails 
 
1 As noted by the Government, 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5) also provides a defendant an 
opportunity to request a hearing if they raise timely objections to a garnishee’s answer. 
However, because Defendant’s Request for a Hearing (Doc. 88) is dated prior to the 
Garnishee’s Answer (Doc. 86), 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) applies to Defendant’s request. 

 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
to properly set forth any exemption under that statute that would entitle him to a hearing. 
The Court must look to 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) to identify whether Defendant has claimed of 
one of the exemptions enumerated in that statute. However, Defendant offers no reasons 
for seeking a hearing. 
Based on the limited record before it, the Court finds that it need not conduct a 
hearing without Defendant offering a plausible argument or basis under 28 U.S.C. § 
3202(d) for the Court to hold a hearing. As such, the Court directs the Defendant to file a 
reply to the Government’s Response explaining his basis for the hearing request based on 
any of the applicable categories enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) . The Court cautions 
Defendant that if he fails to file a timely reply, or if his reply fails to all ege legitimate 
exemptions to the writ issued to Barrett Business Services, Inc. , the Court will deny his 
motion for a hearing. 
 Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant must, within 21 days of this Order, file a reply to 
the Government’s Response to his request for hearing (Doc. 89) explaining his basis for 
requesting the hearing as to the writs issued to Barrett Business Services, Inc. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon reviewing the reply, the Court will 
determine whether a hearing is necessary. 
Dated this 11th day of July, 2022. 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight