A creditor’s garnishment summons froze Tony Strickland’s workers’ compensation settlement funds for nearly four months even though those funds, and his Social Security disability benefits, were exempt from garnishment. Strickland sued the Gwinnett County clerk and others, alleging that Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment process failed to provide adequate notice and due process. By the time of appeal, the funds had been returned and the creditor’s judgment satisfied. The district court dismissed Strickland’s prospective claims against the clerk for lack of standing and mootness. The Eleventh Circuit reversed that dismissal. It held that Strickland had standing because he and his wife remained judgment debtors with modest exempt income, making another garnishment a substantial likelihood; the clerk’s ministerial issuance and processing of a summons fairly traced the threatened injury; and a favorable injunction or declaration could redress it. The case also remained live under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception because garnishment proceedings end faster than constitutional litigation and the same risk remained. The court declined to decide the statute’s constitutionality for the first time on appeal, where Georgia’s Attorney General had not participated, and remanded for merits proceedings.