Mosby v. United States

Filing 24

ORDER - Plaintiff has received the relief he requests and the court DENIES as moot the motion to extend time [D.E. 4]. The court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff's motions for copies [D.E. 21, 23], and DIRECTS the clerk to send plaintiff a copy of t he complaint in this action [D.E. 1]. To the extent plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, the court summarily GRANTS the motion [D.E. 22]. Because plaintiff's claim under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) is not frivolous on its face, the court A LLOWS the action to proceed and DIRECTS the clerk to continue management of the case. Signed by Chief US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/22/2019. Copy of Order and copy of 1 Complaint sent via US Mail to Christopher Mosby at Morrison Correctional Institution. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:17-cv-00253-BO

CHRISTOPHER MOSBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,

\
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Christopher Mosby ("plaintiff'), a state inmate proceeding pro se and without prepayment
of fees, contests a U.S. Dtug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") forfeiture [D.E. 1, 7, 18]. The cause is
before the court to consider pending motions [D.E. 4, 21, 22, 23] and to conduct initial review.
Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to ensure the instant action is tiIDely. See [D.E. 4]
at 1. The court noted in a related case that forfeiture proceedings were initiated against plaintiff on
August 29, 2012. Mosby v. Hunt, et al., No. 5:16-hc-02136-BO (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2018), Order
[D.E. 18] .1 The court directed the clerk to open the instant action as a motion to set aside a forfeiture
under 18 U. S.C. § 983 (e) witlrplaintiff' s motions for the return of property serving as the complaint.
Id. The court assigned an effective filing date of April 20, 2017, see id., a date within the five-year
limitation period for contesting civil

forfeitures,~

18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(3). Thus, plaintiff has

received the relief he requests and the court DENIES as moot the motion to extend time [D.E. 4].
1

Plaintiff previously raised claims incident to this seizure and forfeiture in other cases. See
Mosby v. Sykes, No. 5:15-CT-3202-BO, 2017 WL 4102487, at *2-3 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2017)
(noting the DEA seized money pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 and finding that plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 failed), aff'd 692 Fed.Appx. 755 (4th Cir. 2017); Mosby v. Ingram,
No. 5:15-ct-03247-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2016) (denying ,plaintiff's petition for a Writ of
Mandamus to compel the
of the forfeited money).

return

The court GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs motions for copies [D.E. 21, 23], and DIRECTS
the clerk to send plaintiff a copy of the complaint in this action [D.E. 1]. To the extent plaintiff
seeks other documents, because. plaintiff has not demonstrated a particularized need, he is not
entitled to additional court documents at the government's expense. See Jones v. Superintendent.
Virginia State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152 (4th Cir.), aff don reh'g, 465 F.2d 1091 (4th Cir. 1972), cert.
denied, 410 U.S. 944 (1973); United States v. Gallo, 849 F.2d 607, 1988 WL 60934, at *1 (4th Cir.
May 31, 1988) (per curiam table decision). Plaintiff instead may use the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER) program (10 cents per page) or the record system request through the
Clerk's Office (50 cents per page). See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914, Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees,
at ~4; http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/pdfs/CopyReguestlnstructions.pdf (last visited Feb. 15, 2019).
To the extent plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, the court ~ummarily GRANTS the
motion [D.E. 22]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(l). Pursuant to 28 U.~.C. § 1915A, the court now
conducts its initial review of the complaint, as amended.
Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts an intention to contest the aforementioned DEA
forfeiture in a civil-rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. See [D.E. 22] at 1. Because plaintiff
contends he did not receive notice of this forfeiture, see id. at ~ 8, the court instead will liberally
construe plaintiffs filing as an action to set asidethe forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(e). See
Flores v. United States, No. 1:13CV989, 2015 WL 1977581, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2015).
Because plaintiff's claim under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) is not frivolous on its face, the court
ALLOWS the action to proceed and DIRECTS the clerk to continue management of the case.
"
SO ORDERED. This
day of February 2019.

1J_

~~
Chief United States District Judge

2