UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CURRENCY et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for a Status Report; granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for a Status Report; granting 32 Motion to Seal Document. This case shall remain stayed until February 26, 2016, at which time the stay shall be lifted. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 1/11/2016. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-149

v.
$252,488.84 IN UNITED STATES
FUNDS, et al.,
Defendant Property,
WILLIAM BACON, DONNA BACON,
and CAROL BIGGS,
Claimants.
ORDER

The Court entered an Order staying this civil forfeiture proceeding on May
27, 2015, pending resolution of the underlying criminal investigation. (Doc. 22).
The criminal investigation has not yet resolved. Presently before the Court is
Claimants’ Motion for a Status Report. (Docs. 28, 29). Claimants ask the Court
to Order the Government to submit regular status reports regarding the progress
of the underlying criminal investigation or, in the alternative, to lift the stay in this
matter.
In response to the Claimants’ Motion, the Government filed an Ex Parte
Application to File Under Seal the Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S.
Luke in Support of a Continued Stay in the Civil Forfeiture Proceeding (Doc. 32),

and provided the Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S. Luke (the
“Declaration”) via electronic mail for the Court’s in camera review.

The

Government contends that the Declaration “provides adequate and specific
details related to the status of the related criminal investigation, and supplies
additional grounds to conclude that the Government has met its burden to show
that a stay in this civil forfeiture action is proper and should be continued.” (Doc.
31). The Government requests that the stay in this forfeiture action continue up
to and including February 25, 2016. (Doc. 34, p. 2). The Court held a hearing on
the Parties’ Motions on December 9, 2015.
For the reasons set forth below, the Government’s Application to File
Under Seal the Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S. Luke (Doc. 32) is
granted.

Upon consideration of Officer R.S. Luke’s Declaration, Claimants’

Motion for a Status Report (Docs. 28, 29) is granted in part and denied in part.
The stay in this civil forfeiture action will be lifted on February 26, 2016.
I.

Government’s Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal the Detailed
Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S. Luke
The Government has filed an Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal the

Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S. Luke in Support of a Continued
Stay in the Civil Forfeiture Proceeding. (Doc. 32). Title 18 of the United States
Code, Section 981(g) provides authority for the Court, upon the motion of the
Government, to stay a civil forfeiture proceeding when it may adversely affect a
related criminal investigation. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(g). The statute authorizes
2

the Government to submit evidence ex parte in support of a request to stay
proceedings, explaining why civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the
Government to conduct a related criminal investigation.

Id. at § 981(g)(5).

Finding that disclosure of Officer R.S. Luke’s statement would adversely affect
the ongoing related criminal investigation, the Court grants the Government’s
Application to file the Declaration under seal (Doc. 32). The Clerk is directed to
file the Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S. Luke under seal.
II.

Claimants’ Motion for a Status Report
Claimants filed a Motion for a Status Report on November 4, 2015. (Docs.

28, 29). Defendant Currency was seized from Claimants’ respective interestbearing accounts on December 12, 2013 (Doc. 1, pp. 2–4), although this civil
forfeiture action was not filed until September 26, 2014. (Doc. 1). Prior to the
beginning of discovery and upon the Government’s motion (Doc. 21), the Court
entered an Order indefinitely staying this civil forfeiture proceeding on May 27,
2015, pending resolution of the underlying criminal investigation (Doc. 22).
The underlying criminal investigation has gone on for well over three years
(Doc. 1, ¶ 13), and for a vast majority of that time, Claimants have been unable to
access Defendant Currency from their interest-bearing accounts (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2–7;
Doc. 28, pp. 2–3). As a result, Claimants argue that the indefinite stay in this
case is “unduly burdensome.” (Doc. 28, p. 3). Claimants ask the Court to either
order the Government to submit regular status reports on the progress of the

3

underlying criminal investigation or to lift the stay in the civil action. (Doc. 28, p.
3).
Upon the motion of the Government, “the court shall stay [a] civil forfeiture
proceeding if the court determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the
ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal investigation or the
prosecution of a related criminal case.”

18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1).

A “related

criminal investigation” is an investigation that is in progress at the time at which
the request for the stay, or any subsequent motion to lift the stay, is made. Id. at
§ 981(g)(4). The Court is permitted to consider evidence appropriately submitted
by the Government ex parte in determining whether a stay is necessary. Id. at §
981 (g)(5).
It is the Government’s position that lifting the stay in this civil action would
adversely affect the ongoing criminal investigation. (Doc. 31, pp. 4–5). The
Government contends that the Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S.
Luke provides “adequate and specific details” concerning the related criminal
investigation, such that the Court should continue the stay until completion of the
underlying investigation. (Doc. 31, p. 5). The Government suggests that the
investigation should be complete no later than February 25, 2016, and that the
stay can be lifted without harm on February 26, 2016. (Doc. 34, p. 2).
Upon consideration of the Detailed Declaration of Task Force Officer R.S.
Luke, the Court finds that the stay in this civil forfeiture proceeding remains
necessary in light of the ongoing related criminal investigation. However, the
4

stay will no longer be needed after February 25, 2016. Claimants’ Motion for a
Status Report (Docs. 28, 29) is granted in part and denied in part. The stay on
this civil forfeiture action will be lifted on February 26, 2016.
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Hugh Lawson_________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
les

5