United States of America v. $1,613,251.00 in United States Currency et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 76 Motion for Extension of Time and 77 Motion to Appoint Counsel are denied. 70 Motion seeking a final order of forfeiture is lifted. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/18/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Tiffany Webb at 6140 NW Hickory Place, Parkville, MO 64152 by certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 7012 2920 0001 2196 8442) (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 11-1341-SAC

$1,613,251.00, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Because Ms. Tiffany Webb did not respond to the government’s
motion to strike filed June 10, 2013, and did not respond to the court’s show
cause order filed July 10, 2013, which warned that the court would grant the
government’s motion as uncontested if Ms. Webb did not file a required
response by July 30, 2013, the court filed its order on August 12, 2013,
granting the government’s motion to strike Tiffany Webb’s claim to property
in this civil in rem forfeiture action. (Dk. 69). Ms. Webb then filed a response
to the show cause order and asked for 20 or 30 days to answer the
government’s interrogatories and to file an answer to the government’s
complaint. (Dk. 72). Consistent with her pattern of dilatory conduct, this
single-page filing entitled, “Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause,”
was filed three weeks after the July 30th deadline and eight days after the
court had filed its order granting the motion to strike. The court promptly
entered an order the next day pointing out that Ms. Webb had missed the

relevant deadlines and had offered no substantive explanation for her
dilatory conduct. (Dk. 73). “[I]n the spirit of reserving sanctions as a final
resort,” the court gave Ms. Webb “one last opportunity to comply” by
answering the government’s interrogatories and filing her answer. Id. at 2.
Thus, the court stayed for 20 days its decision on the government’s pending
motion (Dk. 70), and warned that “[i]f Ms. Webb does not make both filings
by September 10, 2013,” then it would decide the government’s motion. Id.
at 2-3.
The deadline of September 10 passed without any filing from Ms.
Webb. As the court was deciding the government’s pending motion, it
received from Ms. Webb on September 16, 2013, an unverified filing that
asks for more time to comply. (Dks. 76). She writes that her efforts to find
other counsel have been unsuccessful and that her disability and her
children’s health have complicated her efforts. She also has filed a motion to
appoint counsel. (Dk. 76).
Ms. Webb waited until this most recent filing to offer health
reasons for her delay. While the court certainly wants to be sensitive to such
issues and to Ms. Webb’s efforts at securing counsel, the court does not see
how it can view these circumstances as genuinely changing the factors
balanced in its order of August 12, 2013. (Dk. 69). After her counsel’s
withdrawal that was caused in part by Ms. Webb’s failure to communicate
with counsel and her refusal to execute settlement papers, Ms. Webb did not
2

seek appointment of counsel until eight months later. The record establishes
that sufficient notice was given to Ms. Webb of all pending proceedings and
that Ms. Webb’s persistent denial of knowledge was baseless or contrived.
Up to now, the court has given Ms. Webb repeated opportunities to comply
even when her requests for additional time were late and offered
insubstantial grounds. At no point has Ms. Webb made any attempt
approaching good faith to meet an extended deadline. Based on her conduct
to date, Ms. Webb’s latest representations are viewed with some skepticism.
Ms. Webb’s pattern of dilatory behavior has delayed the resolution of this
case and wasted judicial resources. In sum, the balance of aggravating
factors surrounding Ms. Webb’s repeated and willful failure to respond to
pending matters and to comply with court orders, her baseless or contrived
representations to date, the costs of delay and the waste of judicial time
outweigh any genuine concerns for yet another extension and more delay.
Consequently, the court denies Ms. Webb’s request for additional time and
for appointment of counsel.
The court hereby lifts the stay and will decide the government’s
motion (Dk. 70) seeking a final order of forfeiture.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Ms. Webb’s motion for
extension of time (Dk. 76) and motion to appoint counsel (Dk. 77) are
denied;

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s stay of its decision on
the government’s motion (Dk. 70) seeking a final order of forfeiture is lifted.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2013, Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

4