U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 127— EXECUTIONS AND JUDICIAL SALES

28 U.S.C. § 2007

Imprisonment for debt

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A person shall not be imprisoned for debt on a writ of execution or other process issued from a court of the United States in any State wherein imprisonment for debt has been abolished. All modifications, conditions, and restrictions upon such imprisonment provided by State law shall apply to any writ of execution or process issued from a court of the United States in accordance with the procedure applicable in such State.(b) Any person arrested or imprisoned in any State on a writ of execution or other process issued from any court of the United States in a civil action shall have the same jail privileges and be governed by the same regulations as persons confined in like cases on process issued from the courts of such State. The same requirements governing discharge as are applicable in such State shall apply. Any proceedings for discharge shall be conducted before a United States magistrate judge for the judicial district wherein the defendant is held.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, § 402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 843, 844, and 845 (R.S. §§ 990, 991, 992; May 28, 1896, ch. 252, § 19, 29 Stat. 184; Mar. 2, 1901, ch. 814, 31 Stat. 956; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167).

Changes were made in phraseology.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“United States magistrate judge” substituted for “United States magistrate” in subsec. (b) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title. Previously, “United States magistrate” substituted for “United States commissioner” pursuant to Pub. L. 90–578. See chapter 43 (§ 631 et seq.) of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: W. J. Usery, Jr., Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Arnold Fisher, 565 F.2d 137 (10th Cir. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
W. J. Usery, Jr., Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Arnold Fisher, 565 F.2d 137 (10th Cir. 1977). · cites it 6× “The trial court denied the Secretary’s petition that Fisher be adjudged in civil contempt, reasoning that the consent judgment was in effect a “money judgment,” and that, by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 2007 and Article II, § 12 of the Colorado Constitution, the court had no authority…”
Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Vision Investments, Inc., Vision Vill., Inc., Lakin D. Kirk, & Nancy J. Kirk, 779 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1986). · cites it 5× “§§ 1701-1720 , the contemners urge us to apply the prohibition against imprisonment for debt of 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (a) and Tex.Const. art. I, § 18.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Diversified Growth Corp., 595 F. Supp. 1159 (D.D.C. 1984). · cites it 4× “Fitzgerald argues that such a measure would amount to imprisonment for debt in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (a), D.C.Code § 15-320(c), and the common law.”
Robbins v. Labar Transp. Corp., 599 F. Supp. 705 (N.D. Ill. 1984). · cites it 4× “Under 28 U.S.C. § 2007 and Rule 69(a), a judgment debtor may be imprisoned for contempt for nonpayment of a judgment if such a sanction is permitted under the law of the state where the court is sitting, which in this case is Illinois.”
Santibanez v. Wier McMahon & Co., 105 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1997). “The court’s order of contempt, entered the next day, adopted the receiver’s report and sentenced Thompson to 30 days in jail for past violations and required him to remain there until full compliance occurs. We note that federal courts are prevented from imprisoning a party for…”
McDonald Corp. v. Victory Investments, Samuel H. Rappaport, Leon Silverman, Theodore Snyder, & Elias H. Stein. Appeal of Samuel Rappaport, 727 F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1984). “Both Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise”) and 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (a) (“A person shall not be imprisoned for debt on a writ of execution or other…”
Kinsey v. Preeson, 746 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1987). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (1982). Body execution statutes are not uniform, but most authorize a body execution whenever a defendant is found guilty of some kind of wrongdoing, such as committing a fraud, or tort, or misconduct in public office or professional employment, or…”
Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Vision Investments, Inc., Vision Vill., Inc., Lakin D. Kirk, & Nancy J. Kirk, 765 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1985). · cites it 5× “ROBERT MADDEN HILL, Circuit Judge: In this appeal from a civil contempt judgment for failure to comply with the payment terms of a consent order, the contem-ners urge us to apply the prohibition against imprisonment for debt of 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (a) and Tex. Const, art.”
Garrett v. Coventry II DDR/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L.P. (In Re White-Robinson), 777 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 2015). “Imprisonment for a Debt Garrett next argues that the Contempt Order was improper because it violates 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (“ § 2007”), the federal prohibition on imprisonment for a debt.”
Lindsey v. Solutions Exch., Inc. (In Re Lindsey), 178 B.R. 895 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (a), which states: (a) a person shall not be imprisoned for debt on a writ of execution or other process issued from a court of the United States in any State wherein imprisonment for debt has been abolished.”
Makarov v. Commonwealth, 228 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 1976). “28 U.S.C. § 2007 (1964). Likewise, there is no explicit proscription in Virginia’s Constitution against imprisonment for debt.”
In Re Antonio Cordova Gonzalez, 726 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1984). “If it is any consolation to Cordova, we note our disagreement with his contention that the court had no right to order incarceration because imprisonment for debt is forbidden by 28 U.S.C. § 2007 (a). We can think of no grounds for a successful challenge to the imprisonment…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.