Esperanza Reyes v. United States Department of Justice, No. 1:2012cv01749 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action re 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/10/12. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 ESPERANZA REYES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Esperanza Reyes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed her complaint against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on October 26, 2012. Plaintiff seeks return of her interest in $154,679 in U.S. Currency seized by the Coalinga Police Department and turned over to the DOJ on April 9, 2012. DISCUSSION 22 23 ) 1:12cv01749 LJO DLB ) ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION ) ) ) ) A. Screening Standard 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the 25 complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof 26 if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim 27 upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 28 1 1 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state 2 3 4 a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the 5 6 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 7 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the 8 Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the 9 Plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 10 B. 11 12 13 14 Allegations Plaintiff is a resident of Huron, California. She alleges that the Coalinga Police Department seized $154,679 in U.S. Currency, along with other items that are being held as evidence in the criminal trial of Salvador Bravo. The U.S. Currency at issue reportedly was seized under the authority of 21 U.S.C. § 881 and ultimately was transferred to DOJ on April 9, 15 2012. Plaintiff received notice of the seizure on September 21, 2012. She now asserts her 16 17 18 19 interest in the property as an innocent owner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 983(d). C. Analysis According to the complaint, the currency at issue in this case was seized for forfeiture 20 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which provides that all funds traceable as proceeds to a 21 violation of the federal narcotics laws are subject to forfeiture by the United States. 21 U.S.C. § 22 881(a), (d). A party seeking to challenge the forfeiture of its property in a judicial forum must 23 file a claim with the relevant Federal agency not later than the deadline set forth in the notice of 24 seizure letter. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(B). The claim is then transferred to a United States 25 Attorney who must initiate a judicial forfeiture action in a federal district court within ninety (90) 26 days or return the seized property. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3). In the subsequent civil forfeiture 27 28 2 1 proceedings, the government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, 2 3 that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). In this instance, Plaintiff has not asserted that she has filed a claim with the appropriate 4 5 Federal agency, that the Federal agency has commenced civil judicial forfeiture proceedings or 6 that she is moving to set aside a declaration of forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a),(e)(1). Rather, she 7 has filed the instant action seeking return of her interest in the currency. The district court lacks 8 jurisdiction over such a complaint for return of currency. See, e.g., McKinney v. U.S. Dep’t of 9 Justice Drug Enforcement Admin., 580 F.Supp.2d 1, 3-4 (D.D.C. 2008). 10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 12 dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 13 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 16 17 18 19 20 with the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: /s/ Dennis December 10, 2012 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 3b142a 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.