UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CURRENCY

Filing 19

ORDER TERMINATING without prejudice 10 Motion for Return of Property; TERMINATING without prejudice 12 Motion Return of Property. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/24/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
$44,936.00 IN UNITED STATES FUNDS,
Defendant Property,

KENNA MIDDLETON,
Pro Se Claimant.

)
)
)
) CASE NO. 5:15-CV-180 (MTT)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Before the Court are Claimant Kenna Middleton’s “Motion for Return of
Property/Answer/and Verified Claim for Property” (Doc. 10) and Plaintiff United States of
America’s “Motion to Dismiss Pro Se Petitioner Kenna Middleton’s Complaint with Jury
Demand” (Doc. 12). For the following reasons, both motions are TERMINATED
without prejudice.
On May 20, 2015, the Government filed a complaint for forfeiture against
Defendant Property. Doc. 1. After receiving notice of the judicial forfeiture proceedings,
Middleton, who is proceeding pro se, filed three identical documents, which were
labeled as “Amended Answer to Complaint for Forfeiture,” “Amended Claim for
Forfeiture,” and “Motion for Return of Property/Answer/and Verified Claim for Property.”
Docs. 8; 9; 10. Clearly, all three documents were intended to be treated as a response
to the Government’s forfeiture proceeding, which is ongoing. Accordingly, the Court
construes Middleton’s filings as a response in opposition to the Government’s forfeiture

proceeding, and Middleton’s motion for return of property (Doc. 10) is TERMINATED
without prejudice.
On May 22, 2015, Middleton filed two identical documents purporting to be a
complaint against the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking “return of forfeited
property.” Docs. 5 at 1; 6 at 1. The Clerk’s Office initially filed this complaint as a
separate civil action (No. 5:15-cv-187) but later terminated that case and refiled the
documents in the present action as an “Answer to Complaint” and “Claim for Forfeiture.”
Docs. 5; 6. Though the Government states that it “initially construed Pro Se Petitioner’s
Complaint with Jury Demand [Docs. 5-6] as a Claim and Answer as docketed by the
Clerk’s office,” it moved to dismiss the complaint “out of abundance of caution.” Doc.
12-1 at 3. The Court declines to rule on the motion to dismiss because the identical
documents are indeed to be construed as a claim and answer, which have
subsequently been amended (Docs. 8; 9), to the Government’s forfeiture proceeding.1
Accordingly, the Government’s motion (Doc. 12) is TERMINATED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of January, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

Of course, in the event that the documents are not to be construed as a claim and answer, the
Government will be allowed to renew its motion to dismiss.

‐2