Margo Hudson v. Bryan Coleman Eric Rodgers, City of Flint, Garnishee-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1DissentMoore, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the district court lacks *147subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant, Margo Hudson’s (“Hudson”), garnishment action against Defendant-Ap-pellee, the City of Flint (“City”). Contrary to the majority, I conclude that Hudson’s garnishment action is merely a post-judgment proceeding following her prior § 1983 action against Defendants-Appel-lees, Bryan Coleman and Eric Rodgers (collectively “police officers”), and that the garnishment action will not inject so many new issues as to become a functionally separate lawsuit. I…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Peacock v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Root v. WoolworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Sandlin v. Corporate Interiors Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Mike Yang v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.