USA v. $10,400.00 US Currency

Filing 15

PROCEDURAL ORDER: Claimant Bean to file a response as outlined by April 1, 2013. The preliminary pretrial conference scheduled for March 19, 2013, is continued until response is filed. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-471-JL

$10,400.00 in U.S. Currency
PROCEDURAL ORDER
In this in rem action for civil asset forfeiture, the United
States seeks forfeiture of $10,400.00 recovered during a search
of the home of Jason Bean, a suspected methamphetamine dealer.
See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a).

Pursuant to Rule G(5) of the

Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions, Bean has filed a verified claim asserting his
interest in the cash.

Bean’s claim explains that his “interest

in the property is based on his relationship with Ms. Michelle
Rowell, who reside[s] in the same household.”
no. 8) at 2.

Claim (document

It further alleges that “[t]he said currency was in

[Bean’s] possession but did not belong to [him],” and that Bean
only had the currency because Ms. Rowell had received a Social
Security award.

Id.

Bean’s answer makes a similar assertion.

See Answer (document no. 10) ¶ 3 (asserting that Ms. Rowell “owns
the $10,400.00 dollars of currency).
As in other types of cases, standing is “a threshold
consideration” in civil forfeiture actions; an intervenor making

a claim to the defendant property “must have independent
standing.”

U.S. v. One-Sixth Share of James J. Bulger, 326 F.3d

36, 40 (1st Cir. 2003).

This requires the intervenor to

“demonstrate an ownership or possessory interest in the seized
property.”

Id. at 41.

Initially, the bar is not set very high;

“any colorable claim on the defendant property suffices.”

Id.

Here, though, Bean has expressly disclaimed any interest in the
defendant property.

It would appear, then, that he has no

standing to pursue his claim.

Cf. U.S. v. 29 Robinson Blvd., No.

10-cv-11236, 2012 WL 3947628, *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 7, 2012)
(concluding that claimant did not “demonstrate a colorable claim
to” defendant properties where he “not only does not allege an
ownership or possessory interest in the properties, but also
acknowledges that at least some of the interests he asserts
belong to [a third party], not him”).
Accordingly, no later than April 1, 2013, Bean shall file a
memorandum showing cause why his claim to the defendant property
should not be dismissed.

The preliminary pretrial conference

currently scheduled for Tuesday, March 19, 2013 will be continued
until after Bean has responded to this order.

2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

March 18, 2013

Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.
Shawn J. Sullivan, Esq.
Paul A. Maggiotto, Esq.

3