United States v. Approximately $27,546.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the Court Grant Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Default Judgment and Final Judgment of Forfeiture, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/21/2013. Matter is referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 9/10/2013. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
APPROXIMATELY $27,546.00 IN U.S.
CURRENCY,

Case No. 1:13-CV-00239-AWI-SMS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
(Doc. 15)

Defendant.

15
16

In this civil forfeiture action, Plaintiff United States of America (“Government”) seeks (1)

17

default judgment against the interests of Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and Olivia Gomez in

18

approximately $27,546.00 in U.S. currency, and (2) entry of a final forfeiture judgment to vest in

19

the Government all right, title and interest in the defendant currency. The Government’s motion has

20

been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72-302(c)(19)

21

and is considered in accordance with Local Rule A-540(d).

22

This Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that this matter is suitable for

23

decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Having considered all written

24

materials submitted, the undersigned recommends that the District Court grant the Government

25

default judgment; enter final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and

26

interest in the defendant currency; and order the Government, within ten (10) days of service of an

27

order adopting these findings and recommendations, to submit a proposed default and final

28

forfeiture judgment consistent with these findings and recommendations.
1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

1
2

The case arises from an investigation into a Kern County marijuana cultivation and

3

trafficking organization. The agencies involved included Immigration and Customs Enforcement

4

(ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the California Department of Fish and Game

5

(DFG), Kern County Sheriff’s Office, and other law enforcement.
In approximately May and June of 2012, a DFG warden together with the U.S. Forest

6
7

Service began an investigation into a marijuana cultivation site in the area of Faye Canyon,

8

approximately 3.1 miles north of the intersection of Highway 178 and Fay Canyon Road in

9

Weldon, Kern County, California. Surveillance at the location observed a Jeep Cherokee with

10

license plate 6TQH004 (hereafter “the Jeep”), at the cultivation site on numerous occasions. A

11

registration search determined the vehicle to be a 2002 Jeep registered to Francisco Barraza Rivas.

12

Surveillance also observed a Crown Victoria at the marijuana cultivation location on several

13

occasions.
During the investigation a traffic stop was conducted on the Jeep for speeding 75 miles per

14
15

hour in a 60 miles per hour zone. The driver and only occupant of the Jeep was Barraza Rivas, who

16

was unlicensed. A second warden observed a large black bag in the rear compartment of the

17

vehicle. Following the stop, aerial surveillance by DFG observed the Jeep travel to 1426 Pearl

18

Street in Bakersfield, California when a sedan similar to a Crown Victoria also arrived. The aerial

19

surveillance observed two subjects remove two large bags from the rear of the Jeep and place them

20

in the sedan. The sedan then drove to 1404 Pearl Street, Bakersfield, California.
The investigation also determined by other means that 1404 Pearl Street was possibly

21
22

associated with illegal marijuana cultivation, through its connection to Drug Trafficking

23

Organization (DTO) suspect Ignacio Perez Gomez a.k.a. Ignacio “Nacho” Gomez (hereafter

24

“Gomez”). Gomez was previously the subject of a 2009 marijuana cultivation investigation and as a

25

DTO leader involved in growing and selling marijuana grown on public lands in Kern and Tulare

26

counties, and he was known to have maintained a residence at that address in 2009. More recently,

27

Gomez had been associated with an active supply drop point for a suspected marijuana grow which

28

1

These facts were derived from the Government’s application and from the Court’s records.

2

1

had been discovered in April 2012 at Highway 178 at Lilly Canyon. Surveillance observed

2

individuals loading supplies to the site. On June 27, 2012, an active pursuit of Gomez took place

3

after he was observed in a 2000 Ford Expedition at the drop point. Gomez fled on foot. The

4

following day, Gomez’ wife reported him as missing and provided a cell phone number for Gomez,

5

indicating that they lived at 900 Pearl Street, Bakersfield, California. On June 29, 2012, 6,535

6

marijuana plants were eradicated from the Lilly Canyon site.
On August 3, 2012, DFG executed a state search warrant at the address of 1404 Pearl Street

7
8

with the assistance of special agents from HSI Bakersfield and members of other units. One adult

9

male, one adult female, and five children were encountered at the residence. The male was

10

identified as Crecencio Medrano-Farfan (hereafter “Medrano”) who did not speak English. An

11

additional HSI special agent arrived to translate and read Medrano his Miranda rights. Medrano

12

waived his right to remain silent and was questioned by a game warden, as witnessed by an ICE

13

agent.

14

Medrano stated that he had been renting the residence for six years and that only the

15

detained subjects lived there. Two months prior, his wife’s nephew, Pablo Gomez, had lived in the

16

outbuilding behind the house. Since then, no one else except for the residents of the house had

17

access to the outbuilding. Medrano stated that he did not have any knowledge of marijuana

18

cultivation or marijuana sales, and that marijuana never entered his residence. Medrano later

19

recanted this statement and said that a man identified as Franscisco “Pancho” Barraza, (a.k.a.

20

Francisco Barraza Rivas) had paid him to store marijuana cultivation supplies in the outbuilding.

21

Medrano stated that Barraza lives five houses down at 1426 Pearl Street, Bakersfield, California

22

and went by the name “Pancho.” Medrano stated that Barraza paid him “$300 twice per month to

23

store fertilizer and other supplies related to the marijuana cultivation totaling approximately

24

$2,000.” Medrano said that two or three weeks prior, Barraza had stored two black bags that had a

25

strong odor of marijuana. They were stored on the floor of the outbuilding in plain sight. Medrano

26

said that was the only time Barraza had stored something like that at the residence. Medrano

27

claimed no knowledge of the sedan or Crown Victoria that was observed delivering bags to his

28

residence.
3

1

Medrano said that he did not know where the marijuana cultivation occurred. He stated that

2

a knee and back injury prevented him from going to the mountains, or the cultivation site. He

3

further stated that he did not know anyone else involved in Barraza’s operation and initially stated

4

that he did not know Gomez. Medrano admitted that Barraza approached Medrano about storing

5

things in the outbuilding, and then admitted knowing Gomez and knowing that he was involved in

6

marijuana cultivation. Medrano stated that Gomez was not directly involved in the cultivation at

7

Fay Canyon.

8

A game warden collected all of the seized items at the residence. He seized four dried

9

opium poppy pods, a PR24 side handled baton commonly issued to and used by law enforcement, a

10

black bag containing a “Capri Sun” box of ammunition, two gun cases, one of which contained a

11

Stag Arms Stag – 15, 5.56mm (.223 caliber) assault rifle with three 30-round magazines and one

12

10-round magazine. One of the 30-round magazines was stamped “RESTRICTED LAW

13

ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY.” In the second gun case was a Marlin lever

14

action 30-30 rifle and a handgun magazine for a Glock Model 19 and handgun magazine for a Colt

15

.380. Id. Also above the ceiling on the west wall was a white plastic bag, which contained a glass

16

smoking pipe commonly, used to smoke methamphetamine. In Medrano’s bedroom, the warden

17

located various indicia, including a list of names connected to the 1404 Peal address, and the

18

defendant currency: two stacks of $100 bills with a JPMorgan Chase Bank band around each stack

19

labeled “$10,000,” dated June 5, 2012, wrapped in a gray sweater; a plastic bag containing $7,500

20

broken down into six stacks, each wrapped in a rubberband; and $46 of loose cash. The warden also

21

located a gold necklace wrapped in an ace bandage depicting Jesus Malverde, a celebrated “folk

22

saint” in Mexico and the United States, worshipped by those involved in drug trafficking. Medrano

23

stated that he paid $5,000 for the necklace and that he purchased the firearms with the intention to

24

resell them for profit. Medrano admitted that he was aware that possessing the firearms was illegal.

25

Medrano also stated that the baton was left at the residence by friends who stole it from a security

26

guard during a fight. A phone seized from Medrano’s residence contained photos of marijuana

27

plants, which match the photos located on another phone seized from the marijuana garden in Fay

28
4

1

Canyon. The warden also located a digital scale located in the room where Medrano was

2

encountered.

3

A second ICE agent interviewed Medrano in the backyard of the residence. Medrano

4

claimed that he had approximately $28,000 in currency in the residence that was from a workers’

5

compensation claim award he received eight months ago from an injury sustained working for

6

Vidal Bros. in Shafter, California. Medrano further stated that he collected food stamps for his

7

children, and had been unemployed for approximately three years. Medrano stated that he received

8

a total award of $48,700 and claimed the following expenditures: Rent of $650 per month for eight

9

months, groceries of $500 per month for eight months, a $1,700 refrigerator purchase, a $10,000

10

vehicle purchase (Medrano pointed to a truck parked at the residence when making this statement),

11

a $3,000 vehicle engine purchase, and $3,000 given to his mother.

12

Olivia Gomez, Medrano’s wife, stated that Medrano received a worker’s compensation

13

award in 2011 for between $40,000 and $50,000 and that the money was used to pay bills, rent, and

14

for the purchase of two vehicles.

15

During execution of the warrant, a Kern County Sheriff’s Department deputy and drug

16

detection canine, “Bob,” conducted a sniff search of the defendant currency. Three identical bags

17

were placed on the ground approximately 15 feet apart from each other. The canine handler was not

18

told which of the bags contained the defendant currency. Bob alerted to the center bag, indicating

19

the presence of the odor of narcotics; Bob did not alert to either of the other two bags. The center

20

bag contained the defendant currency.

21

Medrano was arrested and charged in the Superior Court of California in People v.

22

Crecencio Medrano-Farfan, case number BF143372A, for illegal possession of firearms and

23

ammunition.

24

According to Employment Development Department records, there is no reported income

25

for either Medrano or his wife Olivia Gomez for the past five years.

26

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

27
28

On February 14, 2013, the Government filed its complaint for forfeiture in rem, alleging
that $27,546.00 of defendant currency was subject to forfeiture to the Government under 21 U.S.C.
5

1

§ 881(a)(6) because it was derived from proceeds traceable to one or more violations of 18 U.S.C. §

2

841, et seq. On April 25, 2013, based on the complaint’s allegations, the Clerk of the Court issued a

3

Warrant for Arrest of Articles In Rem for the Defendant Currency. The warrant was executed on

4

April 29, 2013.

5

Public notice of the action and the arrest of the defendant currency were published via the

6

official internet government forfeiture site www.forfeiture.gov for at least 30 consecutive days.

7

Publication in a manner consistent with Local Rule 500(d) via Supplemental Rule G(4)(a) was

8

made beginning March 12, 2013, and proof of such publication was filed with the Court on April

9

26, 2013.

10

In addition to providing notice by publication, the United States also caused notice to be

11

delivered to various individuals with a suspected potential interest in the defendant currency in a

12

manner reasonably likely to reach them, as follows. On April 29, 2013, Crecencio Medrano-Farfan

13

was personally served with copies of the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, Order re

14

Clerk’s Issuance of Warrant for Arrest, Warrant for Arrest of Articles In Rem, Order Setting

15

Mandatory Scheduling Conference, Notice of Availability of Voluntary Dispute Resolution, Notice

16

of Availability of a Magistrate Judge, and notice of forfeiture letter dated April 26, 2013, at his last

17

known address of incarceration at the Lerdo Jail in Kern County located at 17645 Industrial Farm

18

Road, Bakersfield, California.On April 26, 2013, Olivia Gomez was served with copies of the

19

above-listed documents by first class mail and certified mail, tracking no. 7006-2760-0000-0500-

20

9413. The certified return receipt card was signed on May 6, 2013 by Pablo Gomez.

21

As part of the Government’s Requests for Entry of Default, the United States Attorney

22

declared under penalty of perjury that on information and belief, neither Crecencio Medrano-Farfan

23

nor Olivia Gomez was in the military service or was an infant or incapacitated person. There have

24

been no claims filed by or on behalf of Crecencio Medrano-Farfan or Olivia Gomez to the

25

defendant currency and the time for any person or entity to file a claim and answer has expired. See

26

Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture

27

Actions. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on July 5,

28
6

1

2013, Clerk’s Certificates of Entry of Default were entered against Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and

2

Olivia Gomez.

3

The United States now seeks entry of a default judgment against Crecencio Medrano-Farfan

4

or Olivia Gomez, and the entry of a Final Judgment of Forfeiture vesting all right, title, and interest

5

in the defendant currency to the United States.
DISCUSSION

6
7

I.

Sufficiency of the Complaint

8

The Government contends that the allegations set forth in the verified complaint for

9

Forfeiture In Rem and the cited facts provide ample grounds for forfeiture of the defendant

10

currency. A complaint’s sufficiency is one factor for consideration in deciding whether to grant

11

default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Money or other things

12

of value are subject to forfeiture if they are derived from proceeds traceable to one or more

13

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 841, et seq. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
The Government’s verified complaint alleges that the defendant currency is subject to

14
15

forfeiture since it was derived from proceeds traceable to one or more violations of 18 U.S.C. §

16

841, et seq. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). As set forth above and in the verified complaint, the defendant

17

currency was seized on August 3, 2013, in Bakersfield, California. The complaint meets the

18

requirements of Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset

19

Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it is verified; states the grounds for

20

subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and venue; describes the property seized and the

21

circumstance of its seizure; and identifies the relevant statutes. In the absence of assertion of

22

interests in the defendant currency, this Court is not in a position to question the facts supporting its

23

forfeiture. As alleged, the facts set forth a sufficient connection between the defendant currency and

24

illegal drug activity to support a forfeiture.

25

II.

26
27

Notice Requirements
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from taking property

without due process of law. Individuals whose property interests are at stake are entitled to notice

28
7

1

and an opportunity to be heard. The requisite notice was provided to Crecencio Medrano-Farfan

2

and Olivia Gomez.

3

A.

4

Supplemental Rule G(4) provides that in lieu of newspaper publication, the Government

Notice by Publication

5

may publish notice “by posting notice on an official government forfeiture site for at least 30

6

consecutive days.” Local Admiralty and In Rem rules further provide that the Court shall designate

7

by order the appropriate vehicle for publication. Local Rules A-530 and 83-171. On April 25, 2013,

8

this Court authorized publication of the forfeiture action via the internet forfeiture website

9

www.forfeiture.gov for at least thirty days. According to the Government’s Declaration of

10

Publication (Doc. 6), a Notice of Civil Forfeiture was published on the internet site for thirty days

11

beginning on March 12, 2013. Accordingly, the Government satisfied the requirements for notice to

12

Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and Olivia Gomez by publication.

13

B.

Personal Notice

14

When the Government knows the identity of the property owner, due process requires “the

15

Government to make a greater effort to give him notice than otherwise would be mandated by

16

publication.” United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1998). In such cases,

17

the Government must attempt to provide actual notice by means reasonably calculated under all

18

circumstances to apprise the owner of the pendency of the forfeiture action. Dusenbery v. United

19

States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002) (quotations omitted). See also Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank

20

& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950) (requiring such notice “as one desirous of actually

21

informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it”). “Reasonable notice, however,

22

requires only that the government attempt to provide actual notice; it does not require that the

23

government demonstrate that it was successful in providing actual notice.” Mesa Valderrama v.

24

United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005).

25

Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) mirrors this requirement, providing for notice to be sent by

26

means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant. Local Rule A-540 also requires that a

27

party seeking default judgment in an action in rem demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that due

28

notice of the arrest of the property has been given both by publication and by personal service of
8

1

the person having custody of the property, or if the property is in the hands of a law enforcement

2

officer, by personal service on the person who had custody of the property before its possession by

3

a law enforcement agency or officer. Notice must also be provided by personal service or certified

4

mail, return receipt requested, on every other person who has appeared in the action and is known

5

to have an interest in the property, provided that failure to give actual notice to such other person

6

may be excused upon a satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to provide notice without success.

7

L.R. A-540(a). Notwithstanding the Supplemental Rules and L.R. A- 540(a), the Government

8

provides sufficient notice when the notice complies with the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 4. See

9

F.R.Civ.P. 4(n)(1) (providing that when a federal statute authorizes forfeiture, “[n]otice to

10

claimants of the property shall then be sent in the manner provided by statute or by service of a

11

summons under this rule”).
Here, Crecencio Medrano-Farfan was personally served by mail at his last known address of

12
13

incarceration on April 29, 2013. On April 26, 2013, Olivia Gomez was served by first class mail

14

and certified mail. The certified return receipt card was signed on May 6, 2013 by Pablo Gomez.

15

Accordingly, both individuals received actual notice.

16

C.

Failure to File Claim or Answer

17

Supplemental Rule G(5) requires any person who asserts an interest in or right against the

18

defendant currency to file a claim with the Court within 35 days after service of the Government’s

19

complaint or 30 days after the final publication of notice. Supplemental R. G(4)(b) & (5). Failure to

20

comply with the procedural requirements for opposing the forfeiture precludes a person from

21

establishing standing as a party to the forfeiture action. Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1317. The Clerk

22

of Court properly entered default against Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and Olivia Gomez on July 5,

23

2013.

24

D.

Default Judgment

25

The Government seeks judgment against the interests of Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and

26

Olivia Gomez and final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest in

27

the defendant currency. The Supplemental Rules do not set forth a procedure to seek default

28

judgment in rem. Supplemental Rule A provides, “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply
9

1

to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent that they are inconsistent with these Supplemental

2

Rules.”

3

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default entry is a prerequisite to default

4

judgment. “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to

5

plead or otherwise defend, and the failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter

6

the party’s default.” F.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Generally, the default entered by the clerk establishes a

7

defendant’s liability.

8
9
10
11
12

Rule 55 gives the court considerable leeway as to what it may require as a prerequisite to
the entry of a default judgment. The general rule of law is that upon default the factual
allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be
taken as true.
TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

As noted above, the Government properly obtained default entries against the interests of

13

Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and Olivia Gomez. There is no impediment to default judgment sought

14

by the Government against them. The Government properly seeks judgment against the interests of

15

the entire world, that is, a final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title, and

16

interest in the defendant currency. “A judgment in rem affect the interests of all persons in

17

designated property . . . . [T]he plaintiff is seeking to secure a pre-existing claim in the subject

18

property and to extinguish or establish the nonexistence of similar interests of particular persons.”

19

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n. 12 (1958). Because of the defaults of Crecencio Medrano-

20

Farfan and Olivia Gomez the Government is entitled to a final forfeiture judgment.

21
22

RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the reasons discussed above, this Court recommends that

23

1. The District Court grant Plaintiff United States of America default judgment against the

24

interests of Crecencio Medrano-Farfan and Olivia Gomez;

25

2. The Clerk of Court enter final forfeiture judgment to vest in Plaintiff United States of

26

America all right, title and interest in the defendant currency; and

27

3. The District Court order Plaintiff United States of America, within ten (10) days of

28

service of an order adopting these findings and recommendations, to submit a proposed
10

1

default and final forfeiture judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations and

2

the order adopting them.

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii pursuant to

4

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-304. Within fifteen (15) court days of service of this

5

recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with

6

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review these findings

8

and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to

9

file objections within the specific time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order.

10

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

15
16
17

August 21, 2013

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

icido34h

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11