United States Of America v. Approximately $8,800 in American Express Travelers' Checks et al

Filing 52

ORDER TEMPORARILY ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE by Hon. William Alsup granting 50 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

1

MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612)
United States Attorney

2
3

MIRANDA KANE (CSBN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division

4

DAVID B. COUNTRYMAN (CSBN 226995)
Assistant United States Attorney

5

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.436.7234
Email: [e-mail]

6
7
8

Attorneys for United States of America
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16
17

APPROXIMATELY $8,800 IN
AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVELERS’
CHECKS; AND ONE PENTAX 35mm
CAMERA, SERIAL NUMBER 1318242

18
Defendant.
19

)
)
No. CV 09-2308 WHA
)
)
) JOINT REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY
) ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE;
) [PROPOSED] ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

20
Plaintiff United States and claimant Gary Hardeman (collectively the “parties”) requests

21
22

that the above-referenced civil forfeiture case be “administratively closed” for purposes of the

23

Civil Justice Reform Act reporting requirements pending the completion of the related criminal

24

prosecution.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

The effect of an administrative closure is no different from a simple stay, except that
it affects the count of active cases pending on the court's docket; i.e., administratively
closed cases are not counted as active. See Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166
F.3d 389, 392 (1st Cir. 1999) ("This method is used in various districts throughout
the nation in order to shelve pending, but dormant, cases.") In contrast, cases stayed,
but not closed, are counted as active. This case still exists on the docket of the district
court and may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court's own motion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004); see also 18 U.S.C. §

8

981(g)(1); The Guide to Judiciary Policies & Procedures, Vol. 11, Chapter 14, Exhibit 1 (a copy

9

of which is attached hereto).

10

The parties submit that the record of this case provides facts sufficient to support

11

administrative closure. On November 30, 2008, Gary Hardeman was arrested at the San

12

Francisco International Airport after boarding a flight to Mexico. Among his belongings, agents

13

found and seized the defendant property. Hardeman was arrested on an outstanding warrant for

14

failing to register as a sex offender, and charges are currently pending in San Francisco County

15

Superior Court. Hardeman was also arrested for Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign

16

Places, and charges are currently pending in the federal District Court for the Northern District

17

of California. On January 5, 2011, Court stayed the instant civil forfeiture case until April 7,

18

2011, due to claimant's pending criminal prosecution: United States v. Hardeman, 10-cr-00859

19

RS. On October 20, 2011, the United States filed Notice of Appeal of the District Court's

20

dismissal of Count Two of the Indictment (Docket No. 79), and on October 21, 2011 the Court

21

vacated the trial and pre-trial dates. Docket No. 82. On January 14, 2012, the Ninth Circuit

22

reversed the district court's dismissal of Count Two and remanded for further proceedings.

23

Claimant’s criminal cases are still ongoing, and the parties have already respectfully requested

24

an additional stay of this case, so as not to raise the risk of self-incrimination or adversely affect

25

the ability of the government to prosecute the related criminal cases.

26

///

27

///

28

///
Request for a Stay and Temporary Administrative Closure and [Proposed] Order

No. CV 09-2308 WHA

2

1

Thus, because the criminal case is currently pending, the parties respectively request that

2

this civil forfeiture case be administratively closed for purposes of the Civil Justice Reform Act

3

reporting requirements pending the completion of the related criminal prosecution.

4
5

Dated: 01/15/13
/S/ Daniel Paul Blank
DANIEL PAUL BLANK
Attorney for Claimant

6
7
8

Dated: 01/15/13
/S/ David B. Countryman
DAVID B. COUNTRYMAN
Assistant United States Attorney

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

Request for a Stay and Temporary Administrative Closure and [Proposed] Order

No. CV 09-2308 WHA

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER TEMPORARILY

1

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

2
3
4
5

UPON CONSIDERATION of the parties Request for Temporary Administrative Closure, the
entire record, and for good cause shown, it is by the Court on this _15_ day of _January_, 2013
ORDERED that the instant case be, and hereby is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED for

6

purposes of the Civil Justice Reform Act reporting requirements, until the resolution of United

7

States v. Hardeman, 10-cr-00859 RS;

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case still exists on the docket of the district court and

9

may be reopened upon request of the United States or Cary Hardeman or on the court's own

10

motion.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: 1/15/13

15

_______________________
WILLIAM ALSUP
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Request for a Stay and Temporary Administrative Closure and [Proposed] Order

No. CV 09-2308 WHA

4