UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $31,900.00 in U. S. Currency
Filing
10
ORDER denying without prejudice 8 Motion for Default Judgment. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical information and deadlines. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 1/9/2012. (Edwards, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No.5: II-CV-321-F
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
$31,900.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the Government's Motion for Default Judgment
[DE-8].
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Government initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem [DE
l] in this court on June 21, 20 II, alleging that the Defendant, $31,900.00 in United States
currency, was "used, or intended to be used, in exchange for controlled substances, or
represents proceeds of trafficking in controlled substances or was used or intended to be used
to facilitate a violation of Title II of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.,
and is therefore subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)."
CompI. [DE-I]
~
6. Attached to the Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem is the declaration [DE-I.l]
of Paul B. Summerlin, a depurty sheriff with the Person County Sheriffs Office and Task Force
Officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration. In the declaration, Deputy Summerlin
details a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by a woman who represented her name was Janine
Wright, but whose true name allegedly is Sharlene Wilkes. During the course of the traffic stop,
Person County deputy sheriffs seized the $31,900.00, which was stored in the back of a keyboard
owned by a passenger in the vehicle, Rodney Victor. A Person County deputy sheriff issued
Rodney Victor a receipt for the defendant currency.
In accordance with Rule G(3)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and
Maritime Claims, the Clerk of Court issued a "Warrant of Arrest and Notice In Rem" [DE-3] on
June 24,2011. The Warrant of Arrest and Notice In Rem specifically is directed "To: THE
UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA,"
and contains the following two-sentence instruction:
YOU ARE, THEREFORE, hereby commanded to arrest, attach, and retain the
above-described property until the further order of this Court respecting the same;
to give due notice to all persons claiming the same, knowing or having anything to
say why the same should not be condemned and disposed of pursuant to the prayer
of the Complaint, that they must file their claims to the property within thirty-five
(35) days after the earlier of (a) the date this Warrant of Arrest and Notice In Rem
is sent, as defined by Supplemental Rule G(4) (b) (iv) or (b) from completed
publication of the notice of filing of the Complaint, if required, pursuant to Rule
G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture
Claims, and shall serve and file their answers within twenty-one (21) days after
the filing of the claim, with the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court,
Eastern District of North Carolina, 310 New Bern Avenue, P.O. Box 25670,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1481, with a copy thereof sent to Assistant U. S.
Attorney, Stephen A. West, 310 New Bern Avenue, Federal Building, Suite 800,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1461. The claim must, at a minimum, identify the
specific property claimed, identify the claimant and state the claimant's interest in
the property, and be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury, as provided
by Supplemental Rule G(5).
Warrant of Arrest and Notice In Rem [DE-3] , pp. 2-3.
The United States Marshal promptly filed proof of service as to the Defendant currency.
See Process Receipt and Return [DE-4]. The Government, however, did not take further action
in the case until the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Failure to Make Service Within 120 days
[DE-5] on December 27,2011. Thereafter, on January 4,2012, the Government filed an
Affidavit of Failure to Plead or Otherwise Defend [DE-6], Motion for Entry of Default [DE-7],
2
and Motion for Default Judgment [DE-8]. The Clerk of Court allowed the Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment and submitted the Motion for Default Judgment to the undersigned.
DISCUSSION
As explained below, the Government's Motion for Default Judgment [DE-8] is DENIED
for failure to comply with Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(i) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of property
without "due process oflaw." U.S. Const., Amend. V. Individuals whose property interests are
at stake are entitled to "notice and an opportunity to be heard." United States v. James Daniel
Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 48, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993). Accordingly,
Supplemental Rule G(4) sets forth how a plaintiff must provide notice in an asset forfeiture case
to ensure due process of law. FED.R.ClV.P. SUPP. R. G(4). Supplemental Rule G(4)(a) requires
the Government to publish notice of the forfeiture action in a newspaper of general circulation
within the district where the court sits once a week for three consecutive weeks. The
Government also must send direct notice to "any person who reasonably appears to be a potential
claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim."
FED.R.ClV.P. SUPP. R. G(4)(b)(i).
In this case, in support of its Motion for Default Judgment, the Government presumably
relies on the Affidavit of Failure to Plead or Otherwise Defend [DE-6].1 In the affidavit, the
The Motion for Default Judgment itself does not reference the Affidavit. The
Proposed Order [DE-8.1] allowing the Motion for Default Judgment states: "It appearing that a
copy of the Complaint herein was served upon the potential claimant of the defendant and that
publication has been duly made, in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(4), and, thus that
1
3
Assistant United States Attorney representing the Government avers: "Court records and files 2
show[] that service of plaintiff's Complaint and the Warrant of Arrest In Rem was made on
Geurby Victor, a potential claimant of the defendant, c/o of his counsel of record, Robert M.
Gamburg, via certified mail on August 10,2011 by an agent of the U. S. Postal Service." Aff. of
Steve West [DE-6]
~
3.
The court finds that the notice to Geurby Victor, without further explanation, does not
satisfy due process requirements. The Government must send notice and a copy of the complaint
to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant. Here, the declaration attached
the Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem states "[t]he following facts outline the seizure of $31 ,900
in U.S. Currency that was seizedJrom Janine Wright on January 20, 2011." Decl.ofPaul
Summerlin [DE-I. 1] at p. 1 (emphasis added). Later in the declaration, Deputy Sheriff
Summerlin states that Rodney Victor was issued a receipt for the currency seized during the
traffic stop. Rather than provide proof of direct notice as to these individuals, however, the
Government provided proof of notice to counsel for Geurby Victor. There is no explanation in
the record as to the relationship, if any, between Geurby Victor and the three occupants of the
vehicle from which the defendant currency was seized. Nor is there an explanation as to why
neither Janine Wright/Sharlene Wilkes or Rodney Victor received direct notice of this action.
Given this record, the court cannot find that a copy of the Complaint in this action was served
due notice was given accordingly ...." Proposed Order [DE-8.I] at p. 1.
2 The court assumes the Government means its files, because no court record or files
prior to the filing of the affidavit showed proof of service on anyone other than the defendant
currency
4
upon the potential claimant(s) of the defendant currency. The court, accordingly, cannot find that
the Government complied with Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(i) or the Due Process clause of the
Fifth Amendment.
The Government's Motion for Default Judgment [DE-8] is DENIED without prejudice.
The Government is ORDERED to send, within 21 days of the filing date of this order, Notice of
this proceeding to Janine Wright/Sharlene Wilkes and Rodney Victor in accordance with
Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(ii)-(iii). The Government is ORDERED to, within 35 days, file
proof of such service, or an affidavit showing why such service is not necessary or unreasonable.
Moreover, the court recognizes that Supplemental Rule G(5)(ii)(B) provides that a
person must tile a claim "no later than 30 days after final publication of newspaper notice or
legal notice" or "no later than 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet
government forfeiture site" if "notice was published but direct notice was not sent to the
claimant or the claimant's attorney." Given the circumstances of this case, the court finds that
good cause exists to allow the potential claimant(s) 35 days from the date the required notice is
sent as provided in this order.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government's Motion for Default Judgment [DE-8] is
DENIED without prejudice. The Government is ORDERED to send, within 21 days of the filing
date of this order, Notice of this proceeding and a copy of this order, to Janine Wright/Sharlene
Wilkes and Rodney Victor in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(ii)-(iii). The
Government is ORDERED to, within 35 days, file proof of such service, or an affidavit showing
5
why such service is not necessary or umeasonable.
SO ORDERED.
This the 9th day of January, 2012.
6
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?