Reyes v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING action with leave to amend. Within thirty days of service of this Order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint or this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/31/2013. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ESPERANZA REYES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,

16

Defendant.

17

)
Case No.: No. 1:13-cv-545 AWI-BAM
)
) SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
) AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
)
)
) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

Plaintiff Esperanza Reyes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed her

20

complaint against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on April 16, 2013.1 Plaintiff seeks

21

return of her interest in $154,679 in U.S. Currency seized by the Coalinga Police Department and

22

turned over to the DOJ on April 9, 2012.

23

DISCUSSION

24

A.

25

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the complaint

26

for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court

Screening Standard

27
1

28

While Plaintiff is now represented by counsel (Doc. 6), at the time she filed this action, she was acting in pro se.
Accordingly, the Court must conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint.

1

1

determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief

2

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be

4

granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment.

5

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

6

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

7

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

8

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic

9

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations

10

are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart

11

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

12

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient

13

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the

14

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v.

15

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant

16

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the

17

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572

18

F.3d at 969.

19

B.

Allegations

20

Plaintiff is a resident of Huron, California. She alleges that the Coalinga Police Department

21

seized $154,679 in U.S. Currency, along with other items that are being held as evidence in the

22

criminal trial of Salvador Bravo. The U.S. Currency at issue reportedly was seized under the authority

23

of 21 U.S.C. § 881 and ultimately was transferred to DOJ on April 9, 2012. Plaintiff received notice of

24

the seizure on September 21, 2012. She now asserts her interest in the property as an innocent owner

25

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(d).

26

C.

27

According to the complaint, the currency at issue in this case was seized for forfeiture pursuant

28

Analysis

to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which provides that all funds traceable as proceeds to a violation of the
2

1

federal narcotics laws are subject to forfeiture by the United States. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a), (d). The

2

government has sixty days after seizing property to send written notice to interested parties. 18 U.S.C.

3

§ 983(a)(1)(A). A party seeking to challenge the forfeiture of its property in a judicial forum must file

4

a claim with the relevant Federal agency not later than the deadline set forth in the notice of seizure

5

letter. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(B). The claim is then transferred to a United States Attorney who must

6

initiate a judicial forfeiture action in a federal district court within ninety (90) days or return the seized

7

property. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3). In the subsequent civil forfeiture proceedings, the government

8

bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to

9

forfeiture.18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). If no interested party files a claim, then the DEA administratively

10

forfeits the property by default and the only option remaining for an interested party is to file a petition

11

for remission or mitigation of the with the DEA. 28 C.F.R. § 9.3.

12

In this case, the allegations of the complaint do not state whether the property has been

13

administratively foreclosed upon or whether the Federal agency has commenced civil judicial

14

forfeiture proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a ). The allegations do not state whether Plaintiff has filed a

15

claim with the appropriate Federal agency, or whether she is moving to set aside a declaration of

16

forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a),(e)(1). After “the administrative process has begun, the district court

17

loses subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in a peripheral setting.” See Gonzalez v. U.S.

18

Dept. of Justice, 2013 WL 5739090, 4 (E.D.Cal. 2013). Accordingly, since the allegations in the

19

complaint do not state the court’s jurisdiction and the status of any forfeiture action, the complaint will

20

be dismissed with leave to amend.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

21
22

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

24

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first

This action is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

amended complaint; and

25
26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action
will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 31, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4