Lee v. Forfeiture Counsel, Asset Forfeiture Section, Drug Enforcement Administration et al

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 United States' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Opinion and Order. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/5/2014. (MAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KATRICE ANTOINETTE LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-806-FtM-29CM

FORFEITURE COUNSEL, ASSET
FORFEITURE
SECTION,
DRUG
ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION
and UNKNOWN RESPONDENT,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of the United
States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #8)
filed on January 27, 2014.

Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in

Opposition (Doc. #13) on March 30, 2014.

The United States, with

leave of the Court, filed a Reply (Doc. #16) on April 22, 2014.
For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
I.
On August 20, 2013, the Collier County Sheriff’s Office seized
$48,000 (the “money”) from plaintiff Katrice Antoinette Lee during
a traffic stop.

(Doc. #1-1, pp. 3-4.)

The money was subsequently

turned over to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and administrative
forfeiture proceedings were initiated. (Doc. #3, ¶ 2.) On October
9, 2013, the DEA sent plaintiff’s counsel Notice of Seizure letters

that included the procedure and time deadline (November 13, 2013)
for submitting a valid claim contesting the forfeiture.
1, pp. 1-2.)

(Doc. #1-

The Notice of Seizure letters stated that a claim is

deemed filed “WHEN RECEIVED BY THE DEA . . . .”

(Id.)

On November 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a petition for remission
with the DEA, but it was not properly executed.
4.)

(Doc. #16-1, p.

On November 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a Complaint in this

Court seeking the return of the seized money.

The Complaint was

signed on November 13, 2013, the final date for filing a claim
with the DEA.

(Doc. #1.)

December 12, 2013.

An Amended Complaint was filed on

(Doc. #3.)

The DEA received an amended

petition for remission on the following day.

(Doc. #16-1, p. 4.)

Because the DEA did not receive any claims contesting the seizure,
the money was declared forfeited on February 3, 2014.

(Id. at 1.)

The government asserts that this action should be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed
to

follow

forfeiture.

the

steps

necessary

to

contest

an

administrative

The Court agrees.
II.

In any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil
forfeiture statute, the government is required to send written
notice to the interested parties before declaring the property
forfeited.

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A).

Any person claiming an

interest in the seized property in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture

2

proceeding must file a claim with the appropriate official no later
than the deadline set forth in the personal notice letter.
U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A)-(B).

18

A claim need not be made in any

particular form, but must: (1) identify the property being claimed;
(2) state the claimant’s interest in the property; and (3) be made
under

oath,

subject

983(a)(2)(C)-(D).

to

penalty

of

perjury.

18

U.S.C.

§

If the government receives a properly filed

claim, it shall file a civil forfeiture action within 90 days of
the receipt of the claim.

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts that the money seized
during the traffic stop should be returned to her because it was
taken without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Plaintiff’s

claim, however, does not fall within the jurisdiction of this
Court. It is well established that a federal court generally lacks
jurisdiction to review the merits of an administrative forfeiture.
United States v. Garza, 486 F. App’x 782, 784 (11th Cir. 2012)
(citing Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1196 (11th
Cir. 2005)).
review

A federal court does, however, have jurisdiction to

whether

the

agency

properly

followed

safeguards in place at the time of the forfeiture.
A

party

challenging

a

declaration

of

the

procedural

Id.
administrative

forfeiture is limited to the exclusive remedy set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 983(e).
§ 983(e)).

Valderrama, 417 F.3d at 1196 (citing 18 U.S.C.

Accordingly, the only apparent issue this Court can

3

consider is whether plaintiff was given reasonable written notice
of the nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceedings in sufficient time
to file a claim with the agency.
such an allegation.

Id.

Plaintiff does not make

Because plaintiff’s response makes a vague

suggestion that the Amended Complaint actually seeks “review of
the adjudicatory process itself” (Doc. #13, p. 2), the Court will
allow one first amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
(Doc.

#8)

is

GRANTED

and

the

Complaint

is

dismissed

without

prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
May, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

4

5th

day of