Cauthen v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/2/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 2/2/17)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RAFAEL YWAIN CAUTHEN
Civil Action No. DKC-16-3285
Related Criminal No. DKC-12-0353
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Pending is a self-represented motion to return property1 filed by Rafael Ywain Cauthen.2
Cauthen claims that “during the course of the investigation into the crimes leading” to his indictment
property, including a 2009 Dodge Ram truck, an Apple Macbook Computer, and a Fidelity
Investment Account, was seized. ECF No. 1. He seeks the return of this property. The Government
has filed a court-ordered answer to the cause of action. No reply has been filed. The court will
dismiss the complaint for return of property without prejudice.
The Government observes that a 2008 Dodge Ram truck and Apple Mac Computer were
seized from an address in Cleveland, Ohio and argues that the complaint seeking the return of that
property should be brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The
Government further contends that Cauthen has failed to allege that the Fidelity Investment Account
in question was seized in Maryland and has further failed to identify the account by account number
The motion for return of property was instituted as this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
on September 30, 2016. Cauthen has filed neither the civil filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma
pauperis as directed by the court. See ECF No. 2.
Cauthen was convicted on one count of a money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h). On July 13, 2015, he was sentenced to 40-month term in the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons to be followed by three years of supervised release. Cauthen agreed to forfeit $73,584.23,
to allow the government to “identify where those proceeds were seized.”
Alternatively, the Government argues that the claim for return of property should be denied
because it is no longer in possession of the property and/or it obtained legal ownership of the
property when it was administratively forfeited. It affirms, through affidavit, that a 2008 Dodge
Ram Truck was released to the lienholder in October of 2012, and the Apple Macbook computer was
released to the office manager for the lawyer who represented another individual who was also a
target of the investigation. ECF No. 5-2. The Government maintains that the contents of the only
Fidelity Investment Account that agents could possibly associate with Cauthen, valued at
approximately $9,524.00, were administratively forfeited in January of 2012. The Government
therefore argues that because it is no longer in possession of the property sought, thus it cannot be
required to return it.
“A person aggrieved ... by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.
The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).
Further, the Fourth Circuit has held that a defendant may file a motion for return of property seized
in connection with a criminal investigation in the district of the trial only if the criminal proceeding
is pending. United States v. Ebert, 39 F. App’x 889, 890-92 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v.
Garcia, 65 F.3d 17 (4th Cir. 1995)). Because the property that Cauthen asserts should be returned to
representing the proceeds of his offense. Criminal judgment was entered on July 14, 2015. No
appeal was filed.
him is located in the Northern District of Ohio3 or is not sufficiently identified, this court may not
rule on such a complaint and thus, it must be dismissed without prejudice.
The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order follows.
Date: February 2, 2017.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is located at the Carl B.
Stokes United States Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44113.
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?