United States of America v. 6544 Sni-A-Bar-Road Kansas City, Missouri

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel; appointed Rachelle Lynn for Stephen Rowlette. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 17 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint; Answer due on or before 8/28/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 7/27/17.Mailed to pro se party Stephen Rowlette by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DEFENDANT No. 1:
)
REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS
)
6544 SNI-A-BAR ROAD,
)
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,
)
)
Defendant. )
)

Case No. 16-1116-JTM-KGG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL and
MOTION TO EXTEND ANSWER DEADLINE
The matter before the Court results from a Complaint to forfeit and condemn
a particular piece of property (hereinafter “subject property”) filed by the United
States. (See Doc. 1.) Currently pending before the Court are Claimant’s Motion
for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 16) and Motion for Extension of Time to File an
Answer (Doc. 17). Having reviewed Claimant’s motions and the relevant filings in
this case, the Court GRANTS both motions.
Plaintiff United States has not responded to either of Rowlette’s motions and
the time to do so has expired pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1). Thus, the various
factual contentions stated therein are uncontroverted for the purposes of this Order.

Further, the motions are uncontested pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4. Even so, the
Court will decide the motions on the substantive merits.
The subject property is owned by Stephen Rowlette, who is currently an
inmate at a federal penitentiary in Pekin, Illinois. Rowlette states that the property
at issue is his “home and primary residence.” (Doc. 16, at 2, 3.)
The United States alleges that the property at issue “is subject to forfeiture
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(A) because it is property involved in a
transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.” (Id., at 1.) The United States also
alleges that the property is “subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. S 881(a)(6)
because it constitutes proceeds traceable, directly or indirectly, to violations of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.” (Id., at 1.) These federal statutes relate to property
“constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense,” in this
case the sale of illegal drugs and/or the conspiracy to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 1957, 21
U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.
Rowlette argues that he is guaranteed a right to counsel by federal statute.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(b). Subsection 2(A) of that statute states 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 property subject to
forfeiture is real property that is being used by the person
as a primary residence, the court, at the request of the
2

person, shall insure that the person is represented by an
attorney for the Legal Services Corporation with respect
to the claim.
Rowlette argues that if the property at issue does not qualify as his primary
residence, he is still guaranteed counsel by subsection (1)(A) of the statute, which
states
[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.
Rowlette states that “while [he] is not currently represented by Court appointed
counsel, he was previously represented by an attorney under the [provisions] of the
Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A” for the underlying criminal charges for
which he is incarcerated and to which the forfeiture proceedings relate. (Doc. 16,
at 3.) Given his incarceration, lack of income, and being subject to a multi-million
dollar forfeiture order in the underlying criminal case, the Court is satisfied that he
is “financially unable to obtain representation by counsel.”
Plaintiff has not responded to Rowlette’s motion and the time to do so has
expired pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1). Thus, the various factual contentions
stated therein to be uncontroverted for the purposes of this motion. Further, the
3

motion is uncontested pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4.
The Court finds that Rowlette is guaranteed counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. 983(b)(1)(A) and/or (b)(2)(A). Assuming for the sake of this motion
that the property at issue is Plaintiff’s primary residence, he qualifies for the
appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(b)(2)(A). He also qualifies for
counsel in this proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(b)(1)(A) because of his
financial need. The Court, therefore, GRANTS the motion (Doc. 16) on
substantive grounds. The Court hereby appoints
Rachelle Lynn (S. Ct. No. 24872)
Kansas Legal Services
340 S Broadway, 2nd Floor
Wichita, Kansas, 67202
Telephone: [phone]
to represent Plaintiff in this action.
The Court also finds good cause to GRANT Claimant’s motion to extend
the Answer deadline (Doc. 17). Because the Court is appointing counsel, the
parties would be better served by having counsel draft the Answer. As such, the
deadline to file an Answer or otherwise plead is extended until August 28, 2017.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Claimant’s motion for appointment
of counsel (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant’s motion to extend the Answer
deadline (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 27th day of July, 2017.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

5