Filing 2

ORDER granting 1 MOTION to Extend Time filed by USA. The Court extends each of the following deadlines by sixty days from their present date: (1) the deadline under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(A)(i) to start an administrative forfeiture proceed ing against property that was seized in this District between 2/3/2020 and 4/30/2020; (2) the deadline under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(A)(iv) to start an administrative forfeiture proceeding against property seized by state or local law enforcemen t agencies in this District between 1/3/2020 and 4/30/2020 and adopted by one of the Agencies; and (3) the ninety-day deadline established under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) for the filing of a judicial forfeiture action following an Agency's receipt of a timely administrative claim between 2/3/2020 and 4/30/2020. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(C), further extensions of no more than sixty days each may be granted as necessary, upon an appropriate showing. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/1/2020. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
IN RE MATTER OF CERTAIN
PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS

Case No. 4:20-mc-4-DPM

ORDER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983, the United States moves for an Order
granting a sixty-day blanket extension of the statutory deadlines for
doing two things: commencing administrative forfeiture proceedings
against seized property; and commencing judicial forfeiture actions
after timely administrative claims are submitted in those proceedings.
The FBI, DEA, US Postal Inspection Service, and Customs and Border
Protection have identified at least fourteen cases in the Eastern District
that would be affected by the requested extension. Doc. 1 at n.3. And
after the motion was filed, the United States informally advised the
Court that the A TF had identified twenty-seven cases in this District
that would be affected. So this issue touches more than forty cases
pending in this District.
As set out in detail in the United States' motion, Doc. 1, the
ongoing emergency conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic - and
the need to practice social distancing in order to slow the spread of the
virus - have made it increasingly difficult for government agencies to
carry out their responsibilities in forfeiture matters.

Although the

agencies are capable of processing claims and petitions submitted
electronically, most submissions still come through the mail. Thus, the
agencies' forfeiture responsibilities create much paper and require close

physical interaction among office personnel as they process timesensitive mail, provide direct written notice to potential claimants, and
make necessary referrals to U.S. Attorney's Offices.
In light of the working conditions required for the agencies to
provide timely notice, the United States requests a blanket sixty-day
extension of the deadlines for commencing administrative forfeiture
proceedings against seized property. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(A)(i) & (iv).
Further, because the submission of a timely administrative claim
triggers a separate deadline for filing a judicial forfeiture action in the
district court, the United States requests a blanket sixty-day extension
of those filing deadlines, too. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). In support of its
motion, the United States attaches six affidavits. In each, an agency
official certifies that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency's
compliance with the statutory deadlines is likely to endanger the life or
physical safety of the government employees and contractors
responsible for carrying out administrative forfeiture programs, which
justifies, they say, the requested extension of those deadlines. Doc. 1 at

Exh. 1-6
For good cause shown, the United States' motion, Doc. 1, is
granted. The Court finds that the working conditions described in the
United States' motion are inconsistent with the social distancing
guidelines from the CDC and other public health officials. Further, the
United States has shown that requiring timely notice of seizures and
referral of claims during the current pandemic conditions may
endanger the life or health of the government asset forfeiture attorneys
and staff responsible for reviewing cases, issuing notices, and
processing submitted claims and petitions. Good cause therefore exists

for granting the blanket extensions requested. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(C)(D)(i) & (a)(3)(A).
The Court extends each of the following deadlines by sixty days
from their present date:

(1) the deadline under 18 U.S.C.

§ 983(a)(l)(A)(i) to start an administrative forfeiture proceeding against

property that was seized in this District between 3 February 2020 and
30 April 2020; (2) the deadline under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(A)(iv) to start
an administrative forfeiture proceeding against property seized by
state or local law enforcement agencies in this District between 3
January 2020 and 30 April 2020 and adopted by one of the Agencies;
and (3) the ninety-day deadline established under 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(3)(A) for the filing of a judicial forfeiture action following an

Agency's receipt of a timely administrative claim between 3 February
2020 and 30 April 2020. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(l)(C),
further extensions of no more than sixty days each may be granted as
necessary, upon an appropriate showing.
So Ordered.

D .P. Marshall Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
Eastern District of Arkansas