United States of America v. Miscellaneous Personal Property
ORDER denying 7 Motion for Return of Property; denying 9 Motion for Return of Property; denying 10 Motion for Return of Property; granting 12 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/12/2016. (Briggeman, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .
. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLI~A
UNITED STATES OF ANIERICA,
The government seeks the forfeiture of miscellaneous items of personal property seized
during the investigation and criminal prosecution of Saiku Barrie ("Barrie") [D.E. 1]. Barrie and
others conspired to_commit access device fraud. See id. On June 27,2016, Barrie, appearing pro
se, filed a motion opposing the forfeiture and seeking the return of certain property under Federal
Ru1e of Criminal Procedure 41(g) [D.E. 7, 9]. On June 27, 2016, the clerk received Barrie's
unsigned motion [D.E. 7], and filed it on Ju1y 11, 2016, after receiving a signed copy [D.E. 9]. On
Ju1y 19, 2016, Barrie filed another motion opposing the forfeiture and seeking the return of certain
property [D.E. 10]. On Ju1y 21, 2016, the government timely responded to Barrie's motions and
moved to strike his pleadings [D.E. 12-14]. Barrie did not respond. As explained below, the court
denies Barrie's motions and grants the government's motion.
Once the government has commenced a forfeiture proceeding, a claimant cannot use a
motion for return of property under Federal Ru1e of Criminal Procedure 41 (g) to challenge probable
cause for seizure or any other aspect of the forfeiture case. See Supplept.ental Ru1e 0(1) for
Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Rather, to contest the forfeiture, a
claimant must file a proper and timely claim under Supplemental Ru1e G(S)(a)(i) for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.
See,~' Ibarra v. United States.
120 F.3d 472,475-
76 (4th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, although Barrie contests the forfeiture of certain property, his
pleadings do not state proper claims under Rule G(5)(a)(i) ofthe Supplemental Rules for Admiralty
or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (hereinafter, the "Supplemental Rules") for at least
three reasons. First, to comply with Supplemental Rule G, a claimant must "identify the specific
property claimed." Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(A). Barrie's claims do not. Cf. [D.E. 7, 9, 10].
Accordingly, Barrie's claim fails to meet Supplemental Rule G's specificity requirement. Second,
Barrie's claims do not "state... [his] interest in the property." Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(B).
Third, Barrie's claims are not "signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury." Id. G(5)(a)(i)(C).
Thus, Barrie's claims fail.
Alternatively, Barrie's claims are untimely. A person must file a claim "by the time stated
in a direct notice sent under [Supplemental] Rule G(4)(b)." Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(A). In compliance with
the Supplemental Rule, on March 24, 2016, the government mailed direct notice to Barrie at his
place of incarceration, and he received it on May 5, 2016 [D.E. 11]. The notice required Barrie to
file a claim within 35 days of the date the notice was mailed [D.E. 5]. Barrie's June 27, 2016 filing
was untimely, and good cause does not exist to excuse the untinieliness. See Rule G(5)(a)(iii).
In sum, themotionsforreturnofproperty [D.E. 7, 9, 10] are DENIED, and the government's
motion to strike [D.E. 12] is GRANTED. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This 1.1.. day of October 2016.
Chief United States District Judge
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?