United States of America v. $14,050.00

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 07/16/15. (SPT)

FILED
2015 Jul-16 PM 12:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
vs.
$14,050.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:15-cv-00777-HGD
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, United States of America, has filed a Motion for Default Judgment and
Order of Forfeiture. (Doc. 9). It seeks judgment by default, pursuant to Rule 55(b),
Fed.R.Civ.P., against potential claimants Demarcus Toney and Corshunda Moore and
forfeiture in rem of the defendant currency to the United States.
On May 7, 2015, the United States filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In
Rem against $14,050.00 in U.S. Currency, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6),
contending that the Defendant Currency was involved in or used in a violation of 21
U.S.C. § 801, et seq. (Doc. 1). A Warrant of Arrest was issued for the Defendant
Currency on May 11, 2015. (Doc. 3). On May 12, 2015, pursuant to Rule G(4)(b) of
the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture

Actions, the United States served direct notice of the forfeiture action and a copy of the
Complaint for Forfeiture on Demarcus Toney and Corshunda Moore at the known
home addresses for the potential claimants. (Docs. 4 & 5). Demarcus Toney and
Corshunda Moore are the only people who reasonably appeared to be potential
claimants to the Defendant Currency on the facts known to the United States. As
required under Rule G(4)(b)(ii), the notice expressly stated that the deadline for filing
a verified claim was June 16, 2015, which is 35 days after the date the notice was sent.
(Id.). The notice also stated that an answer to the complaint must be filed no later than
21 days after filing the verified claim. (Id.).
The United States published notice of the forfeiture action on an official
government internet site, www.forfeiture.gov, for 30 consecutive days, beginning on
May 13, 2015, and ending on June 11, 2015, as required by Supplemental Rule G(4).
(Doc. 8).
No one has filed a claim to the Defendant Currency as required by 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(4)(A) and Rule G(5)(a), and the time in which to do so has expired. No one
has filed an Answer to the Complaint for Forfeiture as required by 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(4)(B) and Rule G(5)(b), and the time in which to do so has expired. On
June 29, 2015, the United States filed a Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default in this case
pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an entry of
Page 2 of 5

default against all known potential claimants, including Demarcus Toney and
Corshunda Moore. (Doc. 6). The Clerk of Court entered that default on June 30,
2015. (Doc. 7).
The time for filing a claim in a civil forfeiture action is governed by 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(4)(A), which states as follows:
In any case in which the Government files ... a complaint for forfeiture
of property, any person claiming an interest in the seized property may
file a claim asserting such person’s interest in the property in the manner
set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims, except that such claim may be filed not later than 30 days after
the date of service of the Government’s complaint or, as applicable, not
later than 30 days after the date of final publication of notice of the filing
of the complaint.
18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A).
Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset
Forfeiture Claims provides that any person “assert[ing] an interest in the defendant
property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim . . . by the time stated in a direct
notice sent under Rule G(4)(b).” Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(A).
Demarcus Toney and Corshunda Moore were served with notice of the forfeiture
action and a copy of the Complaint for Forfeiture on May 12, 2015. (Docs. 4 & 5).
The United States Postal Service delivered the notices on May 14, 2015. (Doc. 6,
Exhs. A & B). As required under Rule G(4)(b)(ii), the notice specified a claim

Page 3 of 5

deadline of June 16, 2015, which is 35 days after the date the notice was sent.
Therefore, the last date on which Demarcus Toney and Corshunda Moore could have
filed a claim to the Defendant Currency was June 16, 2015.

See 18 U.S.C.

§ 983(a)(4)(A); Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(A). The last date on which anyone other than
Demarcus Toney or Corshunda Moore could have filed a claim to the Defendant
Currency (based upon the notice of forfeiture published on the official internet
government forfeiture site from May 13, 2015 through June 11, 2015) was July 12,
2015. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A); Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B). By not filing a claim to the
Defendant Currency and an answer within the prescribed time limits, all potential
claimants, including Demarcus Toney and Corshunda Moore, have abandoned any
claim they might have had to the Defendant Currency.
The time limit for filing a claim in a civil forfeiture action is strictly enforced.
United States v. $230,963.88 in United States Currency, 2000 WL 1745130 (D.N.H.
Nov. 16, 2000). Once the time for filing claims has expired, the district court may
enter a default judgment against all potential claimants who did not file claims. United
States v. Real Property... 2621 Bradford Dr., 2008 WL 630601, at *4 (S.D.Ohio
March 7, 2008) (granting default judgment as to all persons to whom Government sent
notice but who did not file claims, and as to all other persons or entities who might
have an interest in the property but did not file claims); United States v. Commodity
Page 4 of 5

Account at Saul Stone & Co., 1999 WL 91910 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 11, 1999), aff’d, 219 F.3d
595 (7th Cir. 2000) (once notice has been published and time for filing claims has
expired, court may enter default judgment against all potential claimants who did not
file claims).
Because no claimant has filed a timely claim to the Defendant Currency, the
court finds that plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Order of Forfeiture is due
to be granted. A separate order in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will
be entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE this 16th day of July, 2015.

HARWELL G. DAVIS, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 5 of 5