United States of America v. 1585 Amherst Rd., Morganton, NC, Burke County
Filing
27
ORDER granting 24 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 04/23/2015. (klb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:14cv136
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
1585 AMHERST ROAD,
)
MORGANTON, BURKE COUNTY,
)
NORTH CAROLINA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Stay [# 24]. Claimant moves
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2) to stay this civil forfeiture proceeding. The
Government does not oppose staying these proceedings. Upon a review of the
record and relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay [# 24].
I.
Analysis
Section 981(g)(2) provides that upon the filing of a motion by a claimant,
the Court shall stay a civil forfeiture proceeding where: (1) the claimant is the
subject of a related criminal case or investigation; (2); the claimant has standing to
assert a claim in the civil forfeiture proceeding; and (3) the continuation of the
forfeiture proceeding would burden the right of the claimant against selfincrimination in the related criminal case. 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2). The statute
further defines what constitutes a related criminal case or related criminal
investigation:
In this subsection, the terms “related criminal case” and “related
criminal investigation” mean an actual prosecution or investigation in
progress at the time at which the request for the stay . . . is made. In
determining whether a criminal case or investigation is “related” to a
civil forfeiture proceeding, the court shall consider the degree of
similarity between the parties, witnesses, facts, and circumstances
involved in the two proceedings, without requiring an identity with
respect to any one or more factors.
18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(4); see also United States v. Approximately $345,762.38, No.
3:09cv385, 2009 WL 3230608 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2009) (Keesler, Mag. J.).
Upon a review of the record in this case, the Courts finds that a related
criminal case is currently ongoing that involves similar facts, witnesses, and
circumstances to this civil forfeiture proceeding.
Moreover, Claimant has
standing to assert a claim in these forfeiture proceedings. Finally, a stay of these
proceedings is warranted pursuant to Section 981(g) because civil discovery, will
burden Claimant’s right against self-incrimination in the related criminal case.
See 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2). The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Motion to Stay
[# 24] and STAYS these proceedings for 90 days. After the expiration of the 90
day period, the stay shall automatically dissolve unless the Government or
Claimant can show by motion (accompanied by a status report) reasons why the
stay should not be lifted.
II.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay [# 24]. The Court STAYS these
proceedings for 90 days. After the expiration of 90 days, the stay shall
automatically dissolve unless the Government or Claimant can show by motion
(accompanied by a status report) reasons why the stay should not be lifted.
Signed: April 23, 2015
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?