Whether Washington's garnishment statute is unconstitutional for lack of pre-deprivation procedural safeguards and whether attorneys issuing garnishment writs are state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In the District Courts of Washington, creditors ’ attorneys may issue writs of garnishment onbehalf of the court, and for the benefit of their client. Upon service of these writs on garnishees, debtors are deprived of their property without any pre deprivation process. The courts below ruled, the lack of review by an impartial official and absence of pre deprivation procedure do not render the statute unconstitutional. The circuits are split on the need for pre-deprivation hearing in similar contexts due to their conflicting interpretations of Endicott-Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 266 U.S. 285 (1924). The questions presented are: 1. Whether Endicott should be overruled, and whether Washington's garnishment statute should be ruled facially unconstitutional for failing to provide procedural safeguards prior to the seizure of property to satisfy judgments that may be attacked as constitutionally infirm. 2. Whether an attorney ’s issuance of a writ of garnishment, pursuant to authority conferred by the state and carried out under instructions from the client ’s officials, renders the attorney, the client, and the client ’s officials state actors for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by failing to address Yohannes ’ non-due process claims.