Andy Desty, proceeding pro se, sued the Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS) in federal court after receiving notices that his driver's license would be suspended due to delinquent child support payments. Under Georgia law, DHS is responsible for tracking child support compliance and directing the Department of Driver Services to suspend licenses for non-compliance. Desty alleged that DHS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking an injunction and $2 million in damages. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that DHS enjoyed sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed this dismissal de novo.
The Eleventh Circuit applied the four-factor test from Manders v. Lee to determine if DHS is an arm of the state. First, Georgia statutes define DHS as an 'institution of the state,' and state courts recognize its sovereign immunity. Second, the state maintains significant control over DHS, as its commissioner is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, and its actions are subject to state administrative and judicial review. Third, DHS is funded by appropriations from the Georgia General Assembly. Fourth, judgments against DHS would be paid from state funds. Consequently, the court found DHS functions as an arm of the state when enforcing child support laws. The court further addressed whether Congress abrogated this immunity. It held that the FDCPA does not abrogate immunity because it explicitly excludes state officers collecting debts in their official duties from the definition of 'debt collector' and lacks the 'unmistakably clear' language required to abrogate immunity. Additionally, the court reaffirmed that Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. Finally, the court noted that the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which allows suits against state officers for prospective relief, does not apply here because Desty sued the agency itself, not a specific officer.
The decision bars federal lawsuits against the Georgia Department of Human Services for actions taken in its capacity as a state agency enforcing child support laws. Plaintiffs seeking to challenge such enforcement must pursue remedies in state court or against individual officers under specific circumstances where Ex Parte Young applies. The ruling clarifies that state agencies performing governmental functions like child support enforcement remain shielded from federal liability under the FDCPA and Section 1983 absent a clear congressional waiver.