Barrera-Montenegro v. U.S.

Decision Date09 February 1996
Docket NumberP,BARRERA-MONTENEGR,No. 95-50071,95-50071
Citation74 F.3d 657
PartiesAlphonsolaintiff-Appellant, v. USA and Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Robert Marsh Clark, Clark & Seay, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellant.

Ernest Carlos Garcia, Office of the U.S. Atty., Austin, TX, Stephen George Jurecky, IV, U.S. Atty's Office, Western District of Texas, El Paso, TX, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

This appeal arises from an administrative forfeiture by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") under authority of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(6) 1. The question presented is whether the Plaintiff-Appellant, Alphonso Barrera-Montenegro (henceforth Barrera) received sufficient notice of the government's intent to forfeit money seized during a temporary detention. Because we hold he did not, we reverse the district court's order dismissing his complaint.

I. Facts

On July 22, 1992, at a United States Border Patrol checkpoint at Sierra Blanca, Texas, a search of the bags and a coat found hanging on the front passenger seat inside Barrera's car revealed the presence of $240,678.00 in United States currency. Agents seized the money with the exception of $1,000 in "traveling expenses" which was returned to Barrera along with a receipt for the balance. Agents then informed Barrera of the procedures necessary for recovery of his money. No drugs or other contraband were found and Barrera has never been charged with any criminal offense in connection with the seizure.

Shortly after the seizure, on August 6, 1992, and again on August 24, Barrera's attorney, Ronald Kuba, contacted DEA's Houston/El Paso office regarding the status of the case and the return of the money. He spoke with Special Agents Jerry Wells and Pamela Borquez, who seized the money, and Efrain DeJesus. The agents told him that no file had been created and no charges had been filed against Barrera, but they said Kuba would be contacted if and when something happened. Although Kuba advised DEA of Barrera's correct address and that of his own, Kuba was never contacted by DEA.

On August 10, 1992, only four days after this initial contact with Kuba, DEA commenced forfeiture proceedings by mailing a notice of seizure to Barrera's New York address as listed on his driver's license. The notice was returned unclaimed. On August 19, 1992, DEA began a three-week publication of the notice in USA TODAY, as required by 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1607(a). Three months later, on November 9, 1992, Kuba filed a Petition for Remission with DEA, which he resubmitted in February 1993 because DEA claimed it was never received. 2 On December 4, 1992, DEA issued a declaration of forfeiture without actual notice to either Barrera or Kuba.

On August 16, 1993, DEA denied Barrera's Petition for Remission. He then filed a motion for reconsideration on September 3, 1993. Then, on July 22, 1994, since no action had been taken on his motion, Barrera commenced this action alleging jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. Secs. 877 and 881, and 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1335. In his complaint Barrera alleged: he was entitled to recover the money because neither he nor it had ever been made the subject of any criminal or civil action; DEA's decision denying his Petition for Remission was not supported by substantial evidence; there was no basis for the seizure; the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment; and the seizure violated his right to due process. On September 15, 1994, DEA rejected Barrera's Request for Reconsideration. Kuba asserts in an unsworn declaration that he had no actual knowledge of the forfeiture until he had read the government's motion to dismiss the instant complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed October 3, 1994, almost two years after the money had been forfeited. 3

The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(1), reasoning it had no jurisdiction to review Barrera's claim because there was no factual or legal support for his argument that the DEA violated his due process rights by failing to give him actual notice of the forfeiture proceeding. The district court held that DEA gave notice reasonably calculated to notify Barrera that forfeiture proceedings were underway. Under the circumstances of Kuba's contacts, returned mail and publication, we disagree and will reverse with instructions to return this case to the point at which Barrera may be given proper notice of the government's intent to forfeit the money.

II. Standard of Review

It is well settled in this circuit that "[t]he district court ... has the power to dismiss [pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ] on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. v. Reilly, 889 F.2d 1380, 1384 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 102 S.Ct. 396, 70 L.Ed.2d 212 (1981)). In the instant case, the district court dismissed based upon the complaint and the undisputed facts evidenced in the record, holding that no hearing was required to resolve any underlying factual issues. Therefore, our review is limited to determining whether the district court's application of the law is correct and, if the decision was based on undisputed facts, whether those facts are indeed undisputed. Ynclan v. Department of the Air Force, 943 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir.1991); Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413.

III. Discussion

This court has jurisdiction to review the procedural safeguards of a summary forfeiture of property by the Attorney General. Scarabin v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 919 F.2d 337, 338 (5th Cir.1990). Barrera contends the government should have notified Kuba of its intent to forfeit the money, and failure to do so denied him due process. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1607(a) requires DEA to publish notice of the seizure and intent to forfeit seized property

for at least three successive weeks in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct. Written notice of seizure together with information on the applicable procedures shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized article.

If the party files a claim and cost bond within twenty days from the date of the first publication, the agency must forward the matter to the United States Attorney for the district in which the seizure took place for commencement of a judicial forfeiture proceeding. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1608. If a party fails to respond within the prescribed time period, the property is summarily forfeited. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1609(a).

The government responds that the notice was proper because it was sent to Barrera's last known address 4 and was published as required by Sec. 1607(a). Barrera failed to file a claim or a bond for the institution of judicial forfeiture proceedings and instead sought remission, which is a matter of grace with DEA. According to DEA, since Barrera has elected his remedy, he may not now seek judicial scrutiny of the forfeiture. However, Barrera argues it is the lack of notice, resulting from errors by the government, which caused Barrera's failure to seek his judicial remedy.

Notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The "claimant's right to compel the agency to proceed by judicial forfeiture is an important statutory check on the government's power to forfeit private property. Therefore, DEA's compliance with statutory and constitutional notice requirements are essential components of the statutory regime." Glasgow v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin., 12 F.3d 795, 797 (8th Cir.1993).

Although DEA is under no obligation to employ extraordinary means to notify an interested party to a forfeiture proceeding, when the government has in its possession information which would enable it to effect actual notice on an interested party, it is unacceptable for DEA to ignore that information and rely on notification by publication. Cf. Aero-Medical, Inc. v. United States, 23 F.3d 328, 331 (10th Cir.1994) (notice was unreasonable when DEA knew address to which notice sent was invalid, and made no attempt to notify plaintiff's registered agent, whose identity was in its possession); United States v. Woodall, 12 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.1993) (notice sent to incorrect address was unreasonable when DEA had actual knowledge of party's whereabouts); Glasgow, 12 F.3d at 798 (notice unreasonable when government failed to disclose when claimant should file claim, information critical to his right of judicial forfeiture). The government does not dispute the lack of actual notice to either Barrera or Kuba, nor does it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
608 cases
  • Berry v. Tex. Woman's Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 25, 2021
    ...record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Barrera-Montenegro v. United States , 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. v. Reilly , 889 F.2d 1380, 1384 (5th Cir. 1989) ). The only issue t......
  • Bonin v. Sabine River Auth. of Tex.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • February 10, 2020
    ...facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Lane , 529 F.3d at 557 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barrera-Montenegro v. United States , 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996) ). The Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations set forth in the complaint and construe those allegation......
  • La. State Conference of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Louisiana, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-479-JWD-SDJ
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • June 26, 2020
    ...the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Id. (citing Barrera–Montenegro v. United States , 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996) )."The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Id. (citing......
  • Advocacy Ctr. For the Elderly v. La. Dep't of Health, Civil Action No. 10-1088
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • August 9, 2010
    ...trial by a Louisiana court and ordered to be transferred to Feliciana, but have not yet been transferred. 3 Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir.1996); see also Lopez v. City of Dallas, Tex., No. 03-2223, 2006 WL 1450520, at *2 (N.D.Tex. May 24, 2006). 4 Den Norske......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • 12 Constitutional Protections
    • United States
    • Asset Forfeiture: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...v. DEA, 92 F.3d 648, 654 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509, 512 (1st Cir. 1995); Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 1996). Before CAFRA, if the time for the statute of limitations had expired, the federal courts took two different approaches......
  • Resolved: Is 46 U.S.C. [section] 30501(a) a Jurisdictional Statute of Limitations or a Mandatory Claims Processing Rule?
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 3, September 2022
    • September 22, 2022
    ...548 (1969)). (127) Southern Recycling, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Barrera-Montenegro v. USA & DEA, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996). Under this rule, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 16......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT