USA v. $1,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Claimant Joseph Coppola's 11 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/12/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

9
10
11
12
13
14

2:04-CV-1084 JCM (LRL)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
$1,000 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY SEIZED FROM INMATE
ACCOUNT NUMBER 230227, IN THE
NAME OF JOSEPH ROSARIO
COPPOLA,
Defendant(s).

15
16
17

ORDER

18

Presently before the court is pro se claimant Joseph Coppola’s motion to reopen. (Doc. #

19

11). The plaintiff, United States, has responded (doc. # 12) and Coppola has replied (doc. # 13).

20

Coppola seeks to recover $1,000 seized from his inmate account on March 2, 2004.

21

This in rem civil forfeiture action arises out of a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 981, and is

22

therefore governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983 and the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime

23

Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the “Supplemental Rules”). See Supp. R. A(1)(B); 18 U.S.C.

24

§ 983 (general rules for civil forfeiture proceedings); United States v. $100,348.00 in U.S. Currency,

25

354 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. 2659 Roundhill Drive, 283 F.3d 1146,

26

1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001).

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Supplemental Rule G(5) provides that a person who claims an interest in the defendant

2

property subject to forfeiture must file “a claim in the court where the action is pending.” Supp. R.

3

G(5)(a)(I). The claim must identify the property claimed and the claimant, it should state the

4

claimant’s interest in the property, be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury, and it should

5

be served on government counsel. See Supp. R. G(5)(i)(A)-(D). The rule also requires a verified

6

claim to be filed in the court where the forfeiture action is pending prior to filing an answer. See

7

Supp. R. G(5)(b)(answer to complaint must be filed within twenty days after filing claim); see also

8

18 U.S.C. § 953(a)(4)(B) (same).

9

A claimant seeking to contest a civil forfeiture must demonstrate both Article III standing and

10

statutory standing. See United States v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir.

11

1989). To establish statutory standing, the claimant must comply with the procedural requirements

12

in the Supplemental Rules. See United States v. Real Property Located in Fresno County, 135 F.3d

13

1312, 1316-17 (9th Cir. 1998). A party who fails to comply with these procedural requirements

14

lacks standing as a party to the action. Id. Thus, to establish standing in a forfeiture case, a claimant

15

must comply with the “most significant” procedural requirement of Supplemental Rule G and file

16

a verified claim. See United States v. $487,825.00, 484 F.3d 662, 665 (3d Cir. 2007).

17

The verified claim requirement in Rule G(5) is not a mere procedural technicality.

18

$487,825.00, 484 F.3d at 665. If the claimant fails to file a verified claim, he does not have standing

19

as a party to the forfeiture action. See United States v. One Dairy Farm, 918 F.2d 310, 311 (1st Cir.

20

1990). Filing a verified claim is a prerequisite to the right to answer and defend on the merits. Id.

21

Courts have “repeatedly emphasized” that forfeiture claimants must strictly adhere to the filing

22

requirements to perfect standing. $487,825.00, 484 F.3d at 665. Pursuant to Supplemental Rule

23

G(5), the government may, at any time before trial, move to strike a claim or answer for failure to

24

file a verified claim. See Supp. R. G(8)(c)(i)(A); see also United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency,

25

950 F.2d 1108, 1112-1115 (5th Cir, 1992) (answer properly stricken where claimant filed an

26

untimely claim).

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Coppola’ motion is denied because he has failed to file a verified claim as required by the

2

supplemental rules. In addition to his lack of standing, Coppola waited nearly ten years after this

3

civil forfeiture proceeding concluded in which to file this motion.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that claimant Joseph Coppola’s

6
7

motion to reopen (doc. # 11) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED August 12, 2014.

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-