UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $26,970.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY et al
Filing
21
ORDER - The Court GRANTS IN PART Mr. Alexander's Motion for Cause Status and Relief by Rule 55(c)/60(b) to the extent that the Clerk is directed to INCLUDE a copy of the docket sheet from this cause number when it mails this Order to Mr. Alex ander. [Filing No. 10 .] That motion is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it requests relief from default judgment or final judgment because no judgment has been entered in this case. [Filing No. 10 .] The Court DENIES Mr. Alexander's Motion to Dis miss, [Filing No. 12 ], for the reasons stated more fully herein. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge conduct a case status conference to prepare this case for a merits disposition. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/5/2014. (copy of order and docket sheet to David Alexander via US Mail) (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
$26,970.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, and )
$2,223.72 UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
David L. Alexander,
)
)
Claimant.
)
No. 1:13-cv-01935-JMS-DKL
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Claimant David Alexander’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff United States’ Complaint of Forfeiture In Rem. [Filing No. 12.] In his Motion to
Dismiss, Mr. Alexander argues that the Government did not indict him and is consequently
barred from seizing his property. [Filing No. 12 at 1.] He further contends that the Government
cannot proceed with its action because it has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he
violated either the Controlled Substance Act or the Indiana Code. [Filing No. 12 at 1.] For the
following reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Alexander’s Motion to Dismiss. [Filing No. 12.]
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2)). “Specific facts are not necessary, the statement need only
1
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true and draw all permissible inferences in
favor of the plaintiff. See Active Disposal, Inc. v. City of Darien, 635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir.
2011). The Court will not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations as sufficient to state
a claim for relief. See McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2011). Factual
allegations must plausibly state an entitlement to relief “to a degree that rises above the
speculative level.” Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012). This plausibility
determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id.
II.
BACKGROUND1
On April 26, 2013, the Monroe County Circuit Court issued a search warrant authorizing
officers to search any safe-deposit boxes in Mr. Alexander’s name at Old National Bank and to
seize any monies and items related to the sale, use, or manufacture of controlled substances.
[Filing No. 1 at 5.] The warrant was executed the same day, and officers seized $26,970.00 from
Mr. Alexander’s safe-deposit box at Old National. [Filing No. 1 at 5.]
On April 29, 2013, the Monroe County Circuit Court issued a search warrant authorizing
officers to seize funds from any accounts held by Mr. Alexander at Old National Bank. [Filing
1
Consistent with the applicable standard of review, the representations in this section are based
on the well-pled allegations of the Government’s Complaint. [Filing No. 1.] The Court makes
no findings regarding these allegations.
2
No. 1 at 5.]
Officers executed the warrant later that day and seized $2,223.72 from Mr.
Alexander’s account. [Filing No. 1 at 5-6.]
On May 15, 2013, the Monroe County Circuit Court ordered that the $26,970.00 seized
from the safe-deposit box and the $2,223.72 seized from the bank account be turned over to the
Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). [Filing No. 1 at 6.] Mr. Alexander filed a claim
with the DEA for the $26,970.00 and the $2,223.72.2 [Filing No. 1 at 6.]
On December 6, 2013, the Government filed a Complaint of Forfeiture In Rem pursuant
21 U.S.C. § 881 regarding the $26,970.00 and $2,223.72 it has seized. [Filing No. 1.] On the
same day, the Government notified Mr. Alexander and included instructions detailing the
procedure for filing a verified claim. [Filing No. 7-1.]
On December 20, 2013, Mr. Alexander mailed a Verified Claim and Motion to Dismiss
to the Government. [Filing No. 7-2.] The docket contains no record of it being filed with the
Court. Upon realizing that Mr. Alexander did not file his Verified Claim and Motion to Dismiss
with the Court, the Government moved for an extension of time to allow him an opportunity to
file those documents with the Court. [Filing No. 7 at 2.] The Court granted the Government’s
extension request, allowing Mr. Alexander until February 18, 2014, to file a claim or other
motion. [Filing No. 8.]
Mr. Alexander did not file anything until the Court received a letter on March 31, 2014.
[Filing No. 9.] Mr. Alexander’s letter did not contain a claim or a motion, but it informed the
Court that he had not received correspondence from the Court since what he believed he had
previously filed. [Filing No. 9.]
2
Mr. Alexander’s residence was searched on April 24, 2013, which resulted in officers seizing
$5,900. [Filing No. 1 at 3.] The Monroe County Circuit Court ordered that money to be turned
over to the DEA, but the Government alleges that Mr. Alexander did not file a claim for that
money with the DEA. [Filing No. 1 at 6.]
3
On May 5, 2014, Mr. Alexander filed a Pro Se Notice of Appearance, [Filing No. 11], a
Motion for Cause Status and Relief by Rule 55(c)/60(b), [Filing No. 10], and a Verified Claim
and Motion to Dismiss In Rem Action, [Filing No. 12].3
Mr. Alexander’s March 31 filing did not contain a claim or motion. [Filing No. 9.]
Finally, on May 5, 2014, Mr. Alexander filed a notice of his appearance, [Filing No. 11], a
Verified Claim and a Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 12], and a Motion for Cause Status and
Relief by Rule 55(c)/60(b), [Filing No. 10]. The Court addresses the issues below.
III.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Alexander argues that because the Government has not indicted him, it cannot seize
his property. [Filing No. 12 at 1.] He also contends that because the Government has not proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated the Controlled Substances Act or the Indiana Code,
the Government is barred from seizing his property. [Filing No. 12 at 1.] Mr. Alexander argues
that the money at issue is not subject to the forfeiture statute because it was not furnished or
intended to be furnished by Mr. Alexander in exchange for a controlled substance and could not
be traceable as proceeds to such an exchange. [Filing No. 12 at 4.]
In response, the Government contends that Mr. Alexander applies the wrong standard in
his motion to dismiss. [Filing No. 20 at 4.] It emphasizes that civil forfeiture proceedings are
independent of criminal proceedings and do not require a criminal conviction of any particular
claimant. [Filing No. 20 at 4.] It also points out that a civil forfeiture complaint cannot be
dismissed because the Government does not have adequate evidence to establish forfeitability at
3
The Court notes that the certificates of service on Mr. Alexander’s appearance and verified
claim/motion to dismiss are dated December 20, 2013. [Filing No. 12 at 5; Filing No. 11.] The
date stamp on those documents indicates that the Court received them on May 5, 2014. [Filing
No. 11; Filing No. 12 at 1.]
4
the time the complaint is filed. [Filing No. 20 at 4.] Finally, the Government argues that Mr.
Alexander’s motion is untimely because the Court extended his response deadline until February
18, 2014, and he did not file his motion until May 5, 2014. [Filing No. 20 at 5.]
A. Timeliness of Motion
The Government’s argument that Mr. Alexander’s Motion to Dismiss is untimely is well
taken. Mr. Alexander does not argue that he was not notified of the Government’s forfeiture
action.4 Instead, it appears that what Mr. Alexander intended to file with the Court was, instead,
only mailed to the Government. [Filing No. 7-2.] When the Government realized that, it moved
for an extension of time to allow him an opportunity to file those documents with the Court.
[Filing No. 7 at 2.] The Court granted the Government’s extension request, allowing Mr.
Alexander until February 18, 2014, to file a claim or other motion. [Filing No. 8.] That entry
was mailed to Mr. Alexander’s at his address in the Monroe County Jail and to his attorney.
[Filing No. 8 at 2.] Despite the extension, however, Mr. Alexander did not file the pending
motions until May 5, 2014. [Filing No. 10; Filing No. 12.]
Although Mr. Alexander’s motion is untimely, the Court will still consider its merits. It
is undisputed that Mr. Alexander mailed his motion to the Government in December 2013.
[Filing No. 7-2.] Mr. Alexander filed a letter with the Court on March 31, 2014, representing
that he had not received any correspondence since his filings.5 [Filing No. 9.] Moreover, along
with his motion to dismiss filed on May 5, 2014, Mr. Alexander filed a Motion for Cause Status,
4
The Government sent notice via certified mail both to Mr. Alexander at the Monroe County Jail
and to his counsel. [Filing No. 7-1.] Both letters were received by signature. [Filing No. 7-1 at
3-4.]
5
Mr. Alexander’s letter also references a motion requesting that counsel be appointed, [Filing
No. 9 at 1], but there is no evidence that a motion of that nature was erroneously mailed only to
the Government. Mr. Alexander has not filed such a motion with the Court, and he does not
request counsel in his pending motions. [Filing No. 10; Filing No. 12.]
5
in which he represents that since being incarcerated at the Monroe County Jail he has had a
difficult time receiving his mail.6 [Filing No. 10 at 3.] For these reasons, the Court will consider
the merits of Mr. Alexander’s Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 12], even though it is untimely.
Mr. Alexander should vigilantly attend to his mail to ensure that his filings are timely.
B. Applicable Civil Forfeiture Law
Civil forfeiture proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983. Civil forfeiture complaints
are subject to a pleading standard described in Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims
Rule G, pursuant to the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). That rule states, in relevant
part:
The complaint must: (a) be verified; (b) state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction,
in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue; (c) describe the property with
reasonable particularity; (d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure
occurred and—if different—its location when the action is filed; (e) identify the statute
under which the forfeiture action is brought; and (f) state sufficiently detailed facts to
support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at
trial.
Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. G(2).
“Civil forfeiture actions are independent of criminal proceedings.” United States v.
$12,900 in U.S. Currency, 803 F. Supp. 1459, 1465 (S.D. Ind. 1992) (citing One Lot Emerald
Cut Stones & One Ring v. U.S., 409 U.S. 232, 234-35 (1972)). The Government “is not required
to show that the claimant was convicted of a crime related to the seized property,” and “an
acquittal or dismissal of criminal charges does not affect the Government’s ability to pursue a
civil forfeiture action, even if the civil forfeiture arises from the same activity.” Id.; see also U.S.
v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984) (“an acquittal in a criminal trial
6
In this filing, Mr. Alexander also requests that any default or final judgment be set aside so that
he can have an opportunity to defend his claim. [Filing No. 10.] Because neither default
judgment nor final judgment has been entered in this case, the Court denies that request as moot.
[Filing No. 10.]
6
does not bar a civil action for forfeiture even though based on the identical facts”); Sequoia
Books, Inc. v. Ingemunson, 901 F.2d 630, 640 (7th Cir. 1990) (“if a defendant is acquitted of a
criminal charge, the principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and double jeopardy do not bar
a separate, subsequent civil forfeiture action involving the same underlying facts”).
C. Decision
In his Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Alexander does not argue that the Government’s forfeiture
Complaint is insufficient to comply with the pleading standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp.
G(2). Instead, Mr. Alexander contends that because the Government has not indicted him or
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a criminal offense, it cannot seize his
property. [Filing No. 12 at 1.] This is legally incorrect because civil forfeiture proceedings are
independent of criminal proceedings. See, e.g., $12,900 in U.S. Currency, 803 F. Supp. at 1465
(noting that “[c]ivil forfeiture actions are independent of criminal proceedings” and that the
Government “is not required to show that the claimant was convicted of a crime related to the
seized property”) (citations omitted).
Likewise, to the extent that Mr. Alexander argues that the Government’s allegations do
not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, [Filing No. 12 at 1], the Court reminds Mr.
Alexander that probable cause is the applicable standard in a civil forfeiture proceeding and that
“the Government need not show probable cause until the forfeiture trial.” Id. In fact, “[n]o
complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the Government did not have adequate evidence
at the time the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the property.” 18 U.S.C. §
983; see also $12,900 in U.S. Currency, 803 F. Supp. at 1465 (“In other words, the Government
is entitled to supplement its evidence of probable cause between the filing of the complaint and
the forfeiture trial.”).
7
Mr. Alexander’s remaining arguments are substantive challenges to the actual merits of
the Government’s civil forfeiture proceeding. [See Filing No. 12 at 4 (arguing that the money at
issue is not subject to the forfeiture statute because it was not furnished or intended to be
furnished by Mr. Alexander in exchange for a controlled substance and could not be traceable as
proceeds to such an exchange).] But a motion to dismiss asks whether the well-pled allegations
of the Complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Mr. Alexander does not argue that the Government’s Complaint fails to meet that standard.
Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Alexander’s motion to dismiss.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART Mr. Alexander’s Motion for Cause Status and Relief by
Rule 55(c)/60(b) to the extent that the Clerk is directed to INCLUDE a copy of the docket sheet
from this cause number when it mails this Order to Mr. Alexander. [Filing No. 10.] That motion
is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it requests relief from default judgment or final judgment
because no judgment has been entered in this case. [Filing No. 10.] The Court DENIES Mr.
Alexander’s Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 12], for the reasons stated more fully herein. The
Court requests that the Magistrate Judge conduct a case status conference to prepare this case for
a merits disposition.
08/05/2014
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
8
Distribution via US Mail:
David L. Alexander (D-4-2)
301 N. College Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47404
Distributed to Counsel of Record Via CM/ECF
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?