Jesus Gonzalez v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 17

ORDER to DISMISS Action and Judgment Thereon 11 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/21/13. (CASE CLOSED) (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JESUS GONZALEZ,

9

CASE NO. CV F 13-0575 LJO SKO
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION AND
JUDGMENT THEREON
(Doc. 11.)

10
11
12

vs.

13
14
15
16
17
18

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
______________________________/
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TO THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL

19

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation,

20

and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and

21

matters. This Court cannot address all arguments, evidence and matters raised by parties and

22

addresses only the arguments, evidence and matters necessary to reach the decision in this

23

order given the shortage of district judges and staff. The parties and counsel are encouraged to

24

contact United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to address this Court’s

25

inability to accommodate the parties and this action.

26

INTRODUCTION

27

Defendants United States of America ("Government") seeks to dismiss in the absence

28

of this Court's jurisdiction plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez' ("Mr. Gonzalez'") action for return of
1

1

$154,679 ("funds") held by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"). The Government

2

contends that Mr. Gonzalez neither responded timely to DEA notices nor submitted a timely

3

claim to render the funds administratively forfeited in DEA's favor and to divest this Court's

4

jurisdiction. Mr. Gonzalez responds that he "properly proceeded with an administrative action

5

and when relief was exhausted," he filed this action. This Court considered the Government's

6

F.R.Civ.P. 12 motion to dismiss on the record without a hearing. See Local Rule 230(g). For

7

the reasons discussed below, this Court DISMISSES this action and ENTERS judgment in the

8

Government's favor.

9

BACKGROUND

10

Funds' Seizure

11

On March 3, 2012, Coalinga Police Department officers executed a search warrant at

12

18752 13th Street, Huron, California ("seizure address") in connection with an investigation

13

into Salvador Gariby Bravo's ("Mr. Bravo's") distribution of methamphetamine. At the seizure

14

address, the officers encountered Mr. Bravo, Mr. Gonzalez, Esperanza Reyes Saucedo ("Ms.

15

Saucedo"), Manuel Ascencio Becerra ("Mr. Becerra"), and Arcadio Lopez Garcoa ("Mr.

16

Garcoa").1

17

Ms. Saucedo informed the officers that:

18

1.

She was Mr. Gonzalez' mother and Mr. Bravo's girlfriend;

19

2.

She lived at the seizure address;

20

3.

Mr. Bravo had lived at the seizure address for 20 years; and

21

4.

Mr. Gonzalez stayed at the seizure address from time to time.

22

In his opposition papers, Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that he lived at the seizure address with Ms.

23

Saucedo.

24

The officers found the funds in a safe in a coat closet in the seizure address' living

25

room. Mr. Gonzalez provided the officers the safe's combination and indicated the safe

26

contained $10,000, later indicated it contained $50,000, and finally indicated it contained

27
28

1

This Court will refer to Mr. Bravo, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Saucedo, Mr. Becerra, and Mr. Garcoa
collectively as the "potential claimants."

2

1

$100,000. The officers located in the safe the funds and a .38 caliber revolver. The officers

2

seized methamphetamine, cocaine, hashish, scales and packaging materials.

3

Mr. Gonzalez claimed the funds were from his La Esperanza Restaurant, 36865 S.

4

Lassen, Huron, CA 93234 ("restaurant"). A trained canine positively alerted the presence of

5

illegal narcotics on the funds.

6

Initial Forfeiture Of The Funds

7

On April 4, 2012, the DEA accepted the funds for forfeiture based on violation of 21

8

U.S.C. § 841, et seq., and as furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. The DEA

9

commenced administrative forfeiture of the funds.

10

First Round Of Seizure Notices

11

On April 26, 2012, DEA sent by certified mail, return receipt requested a funds' seizure

12

notice to each potential claimant addressed to the seizure address. The notices for each

13

potential claimant were returned to DEA with the notation "Returned to Sender, No City

14

Delivery, Must Be Addressed to Post Office Box." On April 26, 2012, DEA also sent funds'

15

seizure notices by certified mail, return receipt requested to Mr. Gonzalez and the restaurant

16

addressed to the restaurant's address.

17

notation as the other returned notices.

The notices were returned to DEA with the same

18

On May 14, 21 and 29, 2012, funds' seizure notices were published in the The Wall

19

Street Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the Eastern District of California. The

20

notices indicated the June 28, 2012 deadline to file a claim for the funds.

21

Second Round Of Seizure Notices

22

On June 21, 2013, after confirming Mr. Gonzalez' current address of 16734 13th Street,

23

Huron, CA 93234, the DEA sent Mr. Gonzalez funds' seizure notices at that address by

24

certified mail, return receipt requested and by first class mail to provide Mr. Gonzalez up to

25

July 26, 2012 to file a claim as to the funds. The notices were returned to DEA with the

26

notation "Returned to Sender, No City Delivery, Must Be Addressed to Post Office Box."

27

In addition, on June 21, 2013, after confirming Ms. Saucedo's current address of 16752

28

13th Street, Huron, CA 93234, the DEA sent Ms. Saucedo funds' seizure notices at that address
3

1

by certified mail, return receipt requested and by first class mail to provide Ms. Saucedo up to

2

July 26, 2012 to file a claim as to the funds. The notices were returned to DEA with the

3

notation "Returned to Sender, No City Delivery, Must Be Addressed to Post Office Box."

4

Moreover, on June 21, 2013, after confirming the current addresses of Mr. Bravo, Mr.

5

Garcia, and Mr. Becerra, the DEA sent Mr. Bravo, Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Becerra funds' seizure

6

notices at their current addresses by certified mail, return receipt requested and by first class

7

mail to provide Mr. Bravo, Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Becerra up to July 26, 2012 to file a claim as

8

to the funds. The notices were returned to DEA with the notation "Returned to Sender, No

9

City Delivery, Must Be Addressed to Post Office Box."

10

The Government notes that as of June 21, 2012, DEA had mailed five funds' seizure

11

notices to Mr. Gonzalez and no less than three notices to each of the other potential claimants

12

to provide specific, detailed instructions on how to contest forfeiture by filing a claim and/or

13

filing a petition to request remission or mitigation of the forfeiture.

14
15
16

On August 9, 2012, in the absence of DEA's receipt of a timely, valid claim, the funds
were forfeited to the Government.
Rescission Of Forfeiture

17

With his August 16, 2012 letter, Rodney R. Rusca ("Mr. Rusca"), counsel for Mr.

18

Gonzalez and Ms. Saucedo, requested DEA "to reopen matters in the interests of justice for a

19

lack of due process" in that Ms. Saucedo had daily checked her post office box but had

20

received no notice as to the funds. Mr. Rusca's August 31, 2012 letter again requested

21

reopening in the absence of Ms. Saucedo's receipt of notice at her post office box.

22

Mr. Rusca claims that in May 2012 he spoke with DEA Agent Tighe, who informed

23

Mr. Rusca that "there was an administrative action and that there was nothing that could be

24

done until a letter was received" from DEA. Mr. Rusca further claims he called Agent Tighe

25

periodically and was told "to wait for the letter and that it would arrive." Mr. Rusca notes that

26

he "was later informed that a letter was sent and the case was closed."

27

On September 21, 2012, the DEA sent a funds' seizure notice to Ms. Saucedo in care of

28

Mr. Rusca at his Fresno office address. Delivery of the notice was accepted. The notice
4

1

provided Ms. Saucedo up to October 26, 2012 to file a claim as to the seized funds. Mr.

2

Gonzalez' operative complaint ("complaint") in this action states: "We were mailed notice on

3

September 21, 2012."

4

On October 3, 2012, DEA rescinded the funds' forfeiture.

5

On October 22 and 24, 2012, DEA received petitions of remission or mitigation of

6

forfeiture prepared by Mr. Rusca for Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Saucedo. DEA's November 12,

7

2012 letter to Mr. Rusca acknowledged DEA's receipt of the petitions. Delivery of the letter by

8

certified mail, return receipt requested was accepted.
Second Forfeiture Of Funds

9
10

On December 6, 2012, in the absence of DEA's receipt of a timely, valid claim, the

11

funds were forfeited to the Government. Mr. Rusca's December 4, 2012 letter was received by

12

DEA on December 7, 2012 and requested DEA to "hold your administrative determination

13

until we send the additional information." The letter referenced filing documents in an action

14

in this Court entitled Jesus Gonzalez v. United States Department of Justice, Case No. CV F

15

12-1751 LJO SAB.

16

On March 11, 2013, DEA received from Mr. Rusca additional documents to support

17

Mr. Gonzalez' and Ms. Saucedo's petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture. DEA's

18

March 13, 2013 letter denied the petitions and informed Mr. Rusca that Mr. Gonzalez and Ms.

19

Saucedo had ten days from receipt of the letter to submit a reconsideration request. Delivery of

20

the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested was accepted.

21

reconsideration request.

DEA received no

22

Since denial of the petitions had been issued prior to DEA's consideration of additional

23

documents provided by Mr. Rusca, DEA reviewed the additional documents and reconfirmed

24

denial of the petitions in an April 16, 2013 letter to Mr. Rusca. The letter provided Mr.

25

Gonzalez and Ms. Saucedo ten days from receipt of the letter to submit a reconsideration

26

request. Delivery of the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested was accepted. DEA

27

received no reconsideration request.

28

///
5

1

Civil Actions

2

On October 26, 2012, Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Saucedo had filed prior actions against the

3

Government in this Court. Mr. Gonzalez' complaint in his prior action is nearly identical to his

4

complaint in this action. Ms. Saucedo's action was dismissed given failure to allege filing of a

5

forfeiture claim to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Mr. Gonzalez action was dismissed with his

6

request to do so.

7

On April 22, 2013, Mr. Gonzalez filed his complaint to initiate this action to seek the

8

funds "being held as evidence in Salvador Bravo's criminal investigation." The complaint

9

alleges the funds were "generated legally, through hard work at Restaurante La Esperanza,"

10

and personal savings.
DISCUSSION

11
12

The Government argues that Mr. Gonzalez' claims to the funds are barred in that the

13

DEA provided him actual and constructive notice.

The Government contends that Mr.

14

Gonzalez is not entitled to relief under F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) or 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) to invoke this

15

Court's jurisdiction.
Return Of Property Under F.R.Crim.P. 41(g)

16
17

F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) permits a "person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of

18

property or by the deprivation of property" to seek return of the property in the appropriate

19

criminal action. The Government notes that F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) "applies to criminal matters,

20

but not to civil forfeiture cases." F.R.Crim.P. 1(a)(5)(B) identifies "a civil property forfeiture

21

for violating a federal statute" as a proceeding not governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal

22

Procedure.

23

The Government notes that its forfeiture proceedings bar F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) relief for

24

Mr. Gonzalez. After "the administrative process has begun, the district court loses subject

25

matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in a peripheral setting," including a Rule 41(g)

26

motion.

27

2BCCL8132HBS12835, 972 F.2d 472, 479 (2nd Cir. 1992); see United States v. United States

28

Currency, $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[W]hen a civil forfeiture

U.S. (Drug Enforcement Agency) v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler Auto. VIN No.

6

1

proceeding is pending, there is no need to fashion an equitable remedy to secure justice for the

2

claimant”); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 873 (9th Cir. 1990). The Government

3

concludes that given DEA's administrative forfeiture, the Capital Asset Forfeiture Reform Act

4

of 2000 ("CAFRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 983 ("section 983") provides Mr. Gonzalez "his only remedy

5

at law to challenge the forfeiture."

6

Mr. Gonzalez acknowledges that an administrative hearing under F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) "is

7

not proper," "we are limited with a civil action remedy and Rule 41(g) has no application." As

8

such, the parties agree that F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) fails to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.
CAFRA Limitations

9
10

The Government contends that Mr. Gonzalez' failure to file a timely claim precludes

11

CAFRA relief to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Mr. Gonzalez notes that he pursued an

12

administrative action but fails to identify it.
Failure To File Claim

13
14

"[I]f no one files a claim for the property, the DEA may administratively forfeit it by

15

default, which forfeiture has the same force and effect as a final decree and order of forfeiture

16

in a judicial proceeding." Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 885, 889

17

(D.C. Cir. 2009). CAFRA sets forth the exclusive remedy to seek to set aside a declaration of

18

forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute. Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189,

19

1195 (11th Cir.2005); 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(5). A party seeking to challenge a nonjudicial

20

forfeiture that falls within CAFRA's purview is limited to doing so under section 983(e), which

21

provides:

22
23
24
25
26

(1) Any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture
proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file a
motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with respect to that person's interest in the
property, which motion shall be granted if(A) the Government knew, or reasonably should have known, of the moving
party's interest and failed to take reasonable steps to provide such party with notice; and

27
28

(B) the moving party did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within
sufficient time to file a timely claim.
7

1
2
3
4

...
(5) A motion filed under this subsection shall be the exclusive remedy for
seeking to set aside a declaration of forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute.

5

Because section 983(e) is the exclusive remedy to set aside a declaration of forfeiture

6

under a civil forfeiture statute, a district court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of

7

administrative or nonjudicial forfeitures.

8

("because Defendant failed to file an administrative claim to contest the forfeiture of the

9

$44,853.39 in cash, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear his 41(g) motion as it related to this

10

issue"); Mohammad v. United States, 169 Fed.Appx. 475, 480 (7th Cir. 2006) ("By initiating

11

administrative forfeiture proceedings . . .-that is, by sending notice of a seizure and proposed

12

forfeiture to parties known to be interested in the property and publishing notice to all others in

13

a newspaper-an agency holding seized property divests the district court of subject matter

14

jurisdiction to review the forfeiture."); United States of America v. Cobain, 2008 WL 5397141,

15

at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Instead, a court's review “is limited to determining whether the agency

16

followed the proper procedural safeguards” in forfeited property. Mesa Valderrama v. United

17

States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1196 (11th Cir. 2005).

U.S. v. Shigemura, 664 F.3d 310, 312 (2011)

18

A completed forfeiture action, that is, a forfeiture action in which the seized funds have

19

been distributed within the federal government, can be set aside only by what would be, in

20

effect, a suit against the United States itself.

21

Cir. 200). Such a suit would run afoul of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “which, absent a

22

waiver, shields the federal government and its agencies from suit.” Diaz, 517 F.3d at 611.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Diaz v. United States, 517 F.3d 608, 611 (2nd

Although CAFA provides such a waiver, it is limited solely to notice-based actions under
section 983(e)(1). See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) (5); McKinney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice Drug
Enforcement Admin., 580 F.Supp.2d 1, 3–4 (D. D.C. 2008). The limitation in section 983(e) is
jurisdictional and must be strictly construed. See S.E.C. v. Credit Bancorp., Ltd., 297 F.3d 127,
136 (2d Cir.2002). Therefore, because an attack on the merits of a forfeiture determination is
not an action brought under section 983(e)(1), a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

such a claim. United Sates v. Pickett, 2011 WL 3876974, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
The Government argues that DEA provided Mr. Gonzalez adequate notice and
procedural safeguards in that:
1.

After their seizure, the funds were turned over to DEA, which instituted an

administrative forfeiture proceeding on April 4, 2012;
2.

On April 26, 2012 and June 21, 2012, DEA mailed 17 funds' seizure notices to

the potential claimants;

8

3.

DEA published funds' seizure notices on May 14, 21 and 29, 2012; and

9

4.

DEA rescinded the administrative forfeiture and on September 21, 2012 sent

10

additional funds' seizure notices.

11

The Government notes that Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Saucedo were present during the funds'

12

seizure and had actual notice and that the complaint acknowledges notice of the funds'

13

administrative forfeiture. The Government points to five seizure notices sent to Mr. Gonzalez.

14

The Government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of a

15

completed administrative forfeiture such as the case here where "no valid claim was made and

16

the asset at issue was administratively forfeited." The Government contends that Mr. Gonzalez

17

is unable to satisfy lack of knowledge "of the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely

18

claim" (section 983(e)(1)(B)) in that his complaint acknowledges "[w]e were mailed notice on

19

September 21, 2012." The Government concludes that given such acknowledgement, "the

20

notice requirements have been satisfied, and the court lacks jurisdiction." The Government

21

further points to the absence of Mr. Gonzalez' claim after completion of publication of the

22

seizure notices.

23

Mr. Gonzalez offers no meaningful, specific points or evidence to oppose the

24

Government. Mr. Gonzalez offers conclusory statements that "notice was never received," an

25

"administrative claim was submitted timely under proper notice," "an administrative hearing

26

was pursued," and "we have already had [sic] been through the administrative hearing

27

process."

28

specifics. Administrative exhaustion is inapplicable in that this Court's review is limited to

Mr. Gonzalez appears to claim administrative exhaustion but fails to provide

9

1

evaluation of procedural safeguards. Mr. Gonzalez fails to demonstrate lack of notice of the

2

funds' seizure, especially given the multiple funds' seizure notices sent to him and Mr. Rusca

3

and his presence at the seizure address when the funds were originally seized.

4
5
6

Denial Of Petition For Remission Or Mitigation
The Government continues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to the extent the complaint
alleges that DEA erred to deny Mr. Gonzalez' petition for remission or mitigation.

7

As an alternative to filing a claim, a claimant may "petition the administrative agency

8

for remission and/or mitigation." U.S. (Drug Enforcement Agency) v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler

9

Auto. VIN No. 2BCCL8132HBS12835, 972 F.2d 472, 479 (2nd Cir. 1992).

Under the

10

alternatives, a "claimant is afforded the opportunity to test the legality of the seizure in the

11

forfeiture proceeding. . . . Consequently, once the administrative process has begun, the district

12

court loses subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in a peripheral setting . . ." One

13

1987 Jeep Wrangler, 972 F.2d at 479. As such, the general rule is "that courts do not have the

14

power to review a denial of a petition for remission of forfeiture." See Marshall Leasing, Inc.

15

v. United States, 893 F.2d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. One 1973 Buick Riviera

16

Automobile, 560 F.2d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 1977) (denial of petition for remission filed with DEA

17

is not subject to judicial review on merits).

18

The Government notes that the funds' seizure notices advised Mr. Gonzalez of his

19

options to "request the remission (pardon) or mitigation of the forfeiture" by filing "a petition

20

for remission or mitigation" with DEA, or contesting the forfeiture by filing "a claim" with

21

DEA. The Government points out that DEA considered Mr. Gonzalez' petition for remission

22

and additional documents and confirmed denial of the petition. The Government further notes

23

that Mr. Gonzalez had forgone reconsideration. The Government concludes that this Court

24

lacks jurisdiction given Mr. Gonzalez' exercise to pursue a petition for remission.

25

Mr. Gonzalez offers nothing to invoke this Court's jurisdiction based on his petitions of

26

remission or mitigation. The record reveals that DEA reviewed them and additional materials

27

submitted by Mr. Rusca. Mr. Gonzalez was granted and exercised an opportunity to test the

28

legality of the funds' seizure. Mr. Gonzalez is unclear whether he considers his petitions for
10

1

remission or mitigation as administrative claims. Despite the absence of clarity, the result is

2

the same. Mr. Gonzalez fails to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.

3

CONCLUSION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT

4

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

5

1.

6
7
8
9
10
11

DISMSSES with prejudice this action in the absence of subject matter

jurisdiction;
2.

ENTERS judgment in favor of defendant United States and against plaintiff

Jesus Gonzalez; and
3.

DIRECTS the clerk to close this action.

This JUDGMENT is subject to F.R.App.4(a)'s time limitations to file an appeal of this
JUDGMENT.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

October 21, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11