UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $26,970.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying Claimant's 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It does not appear that Mr. Alexander is facing federal criminal charges or that he is represented by counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Thus, the Court is without author ity to authorize counsel to represent him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983, and his Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. [Filing No. 38.] Mr. Alexander may renew his request for the appointment of counsel if he can identify any other source of authority upon which the Court could act to grant his request. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/6/2015. Copy sent to Claimant via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
$26,970.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
$2,223.72 UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendants.
______________________________________
DAVID L. ALEXANDER,
Claimant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-01935-JMS-DKL

EGOV

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Claimant David L. Alexander’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel. [Filing No. 38.] Mr. Alexander requests representation in this civil forfeiture action
because he has been incarcerated in an underlying state criminal case since April 2013, is unable
to afford counsel, and lacks the training and experience to represent himself. [Filing No. 38.]
18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f a person with standing to
contest the forfeiture of property in a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture
statute is financially unable to obtain representation by counsel, and the person is represented by
counsel appointed under section 3006A of this title in connection with a related criminal case, the
court may authorize counsel to represent that person with respect to the claim.” The statute’s use
of the word “authorize,” as opposed to “appoint,” is significant. “If Congress wished to give courts
the power to appoint new counsel in connection with forfeiture actions, it would have used the

word ‘appoint,’ as it has in other statutes providing for the appointment of counsel. Instead,
Congress deliberately used the word ‘authorize.’” United States v. $500,000 in U.S. Currency,
271 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1258 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A). Thus, under the plain
meaning of the civil forfeiture statute, “courts may expand the scope of a previously-appointed
counsel’s representation to include forfeiture proceedings. But courts do not have the authority to
appoint separate counsel so that the defendant has one counsel in the criminal case and another in
the forfeiture case.” Id.
It does not appear that Mr. Alexander is facing federal criminal charges or that he is
represented by counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Thus, the Court is without authority
to authorize counsel to represent him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983, and his Motion to Appoint
Counsel is DENIED. [Filing No. 38.] Mr. Alexander may renew his request for the appointment
of counsel if he can identify any other source of authority upon which the Court could act to grant
his request.
Date: March 6, 2015

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via US Mail:
DAVID L. ALEXANDER
D-4-2
301 N. College Ave.
Bloomington, IN 47404
Electronic Distribution via CM/ECF:
Debra G. Richards
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]