United States of America v. $11,259 in U.S. Currency

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 18 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 6/5/2015. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

$11,259 in U.S. CURRENCY

*

*

Defendant
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-14-2556

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is the GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY
DISMISS AND FOR FINDING ON DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY (ECF No. 18).

The

Motion is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
The Government’s Motion raises the question of how the defendant property should be
disposed of in light of the dismissal of this action. Two claimant’s, Venitta McKnight and Willie
James Murphy, Jr., each claim to be the owner of the seized funds. The Court concludes that
pursuant to the opinion deciding In Re Matthews, 395 F. 3d 477 (4th Cir. 2005), it should
determine the “status quo ante” of the defendant property, i.e., determine who possessed the
property immediately prior to the seizure and thus, to whom the property should be returned
upon dismissal of this case. The Court does not purport to determine “ownership” of the
property.
Upon the record before it the Court is persuaded that claimant McKnight makes the
stronger and more persuasive case. Claimant Murphy suggests that the cash was his and that it
reflected recent lottery winnings. (ECF No. 20). Claimant McKnight counters that the money
was in her possession as her children and sister had recently repaid loans and she had been paid

money in other transactions. (ECF No. 19). Ms. McKnight’s claim is set out in detail (see ECF
Nos. 18-2; 19). She contends that the money was stored in envelopes that bore certain notations
recording the dates of transactions and repayments from her children. These notations are
consistent with writings that the seizing officers noted when they took the money in the first
place. Most importantly, claimant Murphy stated in his motion for return of the property filed in
November, 2014, that: “the envelopes that the government mentioned in their complaint does
[sic] in fact have number’s written on the back of them. My then girlfriend would keep track of
the money that she lent to her daughter and how much she owed on the loan.” (ECF No. 9, pg.
5).
Accordingly, the defendant property ($11,259 in US Currency) shall be returned
forthwith to claimant Venitta McKnight as the Court finds that the property’s “status quo ante”
was possession by Ms. McKnight.
DATED this _5th _ day of June, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

______________/s/____________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge