United States of America v. Bryant Land et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 11/5/2013. A copy of the order was mailed to the pro se plaintiffs. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:13-CV-15-D

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
BRYANTLAND,LOCATEDAT
)
107 OLD CEMETERY ROAD, DARE
)
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AS
)
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AT DEED
)
BOOK 498, PAGE 629 OF THE DARE
)
COUNTY REGISTRY, NORTH
)
CAROLINA, BEING TITLED IN THE
)
)
NAMES OF DEBRA P. BRYANT AND
HUSBAND, CURTIS W. BRYANT; AND )
ANY AND ALL PROCEEDS FROM THE )
SALE OF SAID PROPERTY,
)
)
AND
)
)
A 1989 CHAMPION MOBILE HOME,
)
VIN: GAFLJ05B 15 134CH; AND ANY
)
AND ALL PROCEEDS FROM THE
)
SALE OF SAID PROPERTY,
)
)
Defendants. )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ORDER

On October 31,2011, this court sentenced Curtis Wade Bryant, Sr. ("Curtis Bryant") to 108
months' imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine
and cocaine base (crack). See United States v. Curtis Wade Bzyant. Sr.. No. 2:11-CR-19-D, [D.E.
35]. On March 12,2013, the United States ("government") filed a complaint seeking forfeiture in
rem of a tract of land and attached mobile home. See 21 U.S. C. § 881(a)(7). The government
contends that Curtis Bryant used the property to distribute cocaine. See [D.E. 1] 2; [D.E. 1-2] 1-3.
Moreover, although the government did not criminally prosecute claimant Debra Bryant, Curtis

Bryant's wife, the government contends she was aware of Curtis Bryant's illegal activities and did
not take reasonable steps to prevent the illegal activity from occurring on the property. See [D.E.
1-2] 1.
On June 18,2013, in response to the government's forfeiture complaint, the Bryants filed a
joint claim. See [D.E. 6]. The Bryants also filed a joint answer to the complaint, generally denying
the allegations of the complaint. See [D.E. 7]. On June 26,2013, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a
claim seeking protection of its security interest in the property. See [D.E. 12]. On July 9, 2013,
Wells Fargo filed its answer. See [D .E. 14]. Publication has been made, and no other claims have
been filed. See [D.E. 16].
On August 29, 2013, the Bryants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. See [D.E. 19].
The motion is captioned as "THE BRYANTS MOTION" and the first paragraph refers to the filers
in the plural. The certificate of service also refers to both Bryants. Nevertheless, only Curtis Bryant
signed the motion. See id. 6.
Supplemental Rule 0(5) provides a two-step process for contesting a forfeiture action in
rem. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. 0(5). First, a person must file a claim in accordance with
Supplemental Rule O(S)(a). Then, the claimant must file an answer to the complaint or a motion in
accordance with Supplemental Rule G(S)(b). Curtis Bryant did both. Nonetheless, the government
argues that Curtis Bryant lacks Article ill standing to assert a claim concerning the property.
"The term statutory standing relates to a claimant's ability to show that he has satisfied
whatever statutory requirements Congress has imposed for contesting a civil forfeiture action in
federal court, while Article ill standing ... relates to the claimant's ability to show that he has a
sufficient interest in the property to satisfy the case-or controversy requirement of Article ill of the
Constitution." United States v. 8 Gilcrease Lane. 641 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5-6 (D.D.C. 2009) (quotations
2

omitted). Curtis Bryant lacks Article ill standing because, in his plea agreement, he agreed not to
contest a civil forfeiture of that property. See United States v. Curtis Wade Bzyant. Sr., No. 2:11CR-19-D, [D.E. 28] ~ 2(e); United States v. Twenty Miljam-350 lED Jammers. 669 F.3d 78,91 (2d
Cir. 2011); UnitedStatesv. Real Prop. Described in Deeds. 962F. Supp. 734,737 (W.D.N.C.1997)
(collecting cases). Indeed, in his criminal case, the court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture
forfeiting Curtis Bryant's interest in the real property and mobile home. See United States v. Curtis
Wade Bzyant Sr.. No. 2:11-CR-19-D, [D.E. 29].

Given Bryant's plea agreement and the

preliminary order of forfeiture, Curtis Bryant has no interest in the property. Thus, he lacks Article

mstanding.
In sum, the court DENIES the Bryants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 19], and
GRANTS the government's motion for partial summary judgment [D.E. 21]. Curtis Wade Bryant,
Sr.'s interest in the defendant property is forfeited to the United States.
SO ORDERED. This L

day ofNovember 2013.

Chief United States District Judge

3