Cason v. Holder

• Decision Date: 27 September 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. ELH–11–01304.
• Citation: Cason v. Holder, 815 F.Supp.2d 918 (D. Mass. 2011)
• Parties: Ishia CASON, Plaintiff, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

815 F.Supp.2d 918

Ishia CASON, Plaintiff,

v.Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH–11–01304.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Ishia Cason, Baltimore, MD, pro se.

Jason Daniel Medinger, Constantine Peter Lizas, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN LIPTON HOLLANDER, District Judge.

Ishia Cason, the self-represented plaintiff, has brought suit against Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States; Rod Rosenstein, United States Attorney for the District of Maryland; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the United States Treasury Department; ¹ and Special Agent Shaun Bridges of the United States Secret Service (“USSS”), seeking an injunction ordering the return of a motor vehicle, to wit, a 2004 Porsche Cayenne, seized by the Maryland State Police in March 2011, and subsequently remanded to the custody of the USSS. See Complaint (ECF 1).² Plaintiff relies on Title 28 U.S.C. § 1355, and also contends that the warrantless seizure of the vehicle violated her rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.³ In addition, she complains that the Government did not comply with the statutory procedures for forfeiture, presumably under 18 U.S.C. § 981 et seq.

Defendants have filed a “Motion To Dismiss, Or Alternatively, For Summary Judgment” (“Motion,” ECF 12), as well as a “Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Dismiss, Or Alternatively, For Summary Judgment” (“Motion Memo,” ECF 12–1).⁴ Plaintiff has filed a “Motion To Respond To Defendants [sic] Meritless Request to Dismiss Or Alternatively For Summary Judgment” (“Response,” ECF 14). In her response, plaintiff attempts to amend or supplement her Complaint to include a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a “Reply Brief In Support Of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Or Alternatively, For Summary Judgment” (“Reply,” ECF 15).

As the matter has been fully briefed, the Court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being necessary.

Factual and Procedural Background ⁵

At issue here is a 2004 Porsche Cayenne, VIN WP1AB29P54LA66153. Complaint at 4. The vehicle was purchased on or about January 4, 2011, for $2,000.00. Motion Memo at 4. At the time, the vehicle had a cash value of $17,000.00. Id. The Certificate of Title for the vehicle identified “Ishia Cason, LLC” as the registered owner, with an address of 1628 West Lexington Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21223. Complaint at 4. That address corresponds to the address plaintiff used as her address for the filing of her Complaint. Id. at 1. According to the Government, “there are no known records of an entity” by the name of Ishia Cason, LLC. Motion Memo at 4 (citing Exh. 2, Declaration of SA Shaun Bridges at ¶ 1n). At the time of the vehicle's purchase, plaintiff was unemployed and receiving public assistance. Id.

The Government explains that plaintiff was suspected of participating in a scheme in which credit cards and credit card numbers were stolen from the restrooms of rest stops along I95 in Maryland. Motion Memo at 3. Allegedly, plaintiff and her “co-conspirator” would steal the cards and/or numbers and use them to purchase items from Nordstrom, the department store, and then return the items for cash. Id. at 4. The Porsche Cayenne was suspected of constituting “proceeds traceable to identity fraud and access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028, 1029.” Id. at 3. Therefore, the vehicle was subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981. Complaint Appendix, Exh. 2.

Consequently, on March 4, 2011, the Maryland State Police seized the vehicle from 1760 Carswell Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Complaint Appendix, Exh. 1.⁶ The vehicle was later remanded to the custody of the USSS, which began administrative forfeiture proceedings. Id.

On April 20, 2011, the USSS furnished plaintiff with an “Agreement to Surrender Property.” Complaint Appendix, Exh. 1. The Agreement advised plaintiff that administrative forfeiture proceedings had been initiated and provided that, if plaintiff would voluntarily relinquish ownership of the vehicle in cooperation with the investigation of the alleged violations of federal law related to the purchase of the vehicle, the USSS would not proceed with criminal charges for those alleged violations. Id. Plaintiff did not sign the Agreement. Id. By letter dated April 28, 2011, the USSS advised plaintiff of her right to contest the forfeiture. Complaint Appendix, Exh. 2. The letter also informed plaintiff that, if she disagreed with the USSS' claim that the property was subject to forfeiture and sought a trial of the matter in a federal district court, she would have to file a Claim of Ownership with the USSS by June 2, 2011. Id. However, plaintiff did not file a Claim of Ownership. Instead, she instituted this suit, on May 11, 2011. ⁷

On July 25, 2011, the United States filed a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture in this Court regarding the Porsche. That matter is currently pending before Judge William Quarles, Jr. Motion Memo, Exh. 1. See United States v. One 2004 Porsche Cayenne, WDQ–11–cv–2045 (D.Md.). According to the verified complaint in that case, the vehicle was seized based on facts indicating that the vehicle constituted proceeds traceable to identify fraud and access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028, 1029.⁸

Parties' Contentions

Plaintiff contends that the initial seizure of the vehicle by the Maryland State Police was executed without a warrant, in violation of her rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Complaint at 3, Response at 2. Accordingly, she contends that the federal government has no right to the vehicle. Response at 3. Plaintiff asserts: “[W]hen the state law enforcement agencies realized their errors they decided to compound their errors by illegally transferring the property they seized to [the USSS] even though the Secret Service did not file a complaint for forfeiture ... nor is the U.S. Attorney General's office involved in this matter....” Complaint at 3. Therefore, plaintiff asks this Court to issue an injunction commanding the return of her property. Id. at 5.⁹

In her Response, plaintiff also asks that the Court “Grant Relief Under the Civil Rights Act Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, As A Supplemental [sic] To [The] Original Complaint.” Response at 1 (caption). Claiming that “the facts clearly show that plaintiff's federal rights were violated,” Response at 11, plaintiff attempts to allege a § 1983 claim, asserting:

[S]he has been unconstitutionally deprived of a liberty interest by the defendants under the illegal authority of state police officers by their failure to comply with clear rights contained in the United States Constitution's 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and the mandatory federal and state statutes and Supreme Court common law that implements those fundamental rights.

Response at 12–13.

In addition, plaintiff requests “punitive and accumulative damages.” Id. at 14. In her Complaint, however, plaintiff had only requested the return of the vehicle.¹⁰

Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint on four separate grounds. They contend first that, because the USSS initiated administrative forfeiture before plaintiff filed suit, and because the United States has, subsequent to the filing of this suit, instituted filed a formal civil forfeiture complaint against the subject property, this Court has been “divested of subject matter jurisdiction” with respect to the underlying complaint. Motion at 2. Second, defendants urge dismissal on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2). Id. Given that plaintiff's Complaint could be construed as a motion to compel the Government to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings, defendants also argue that the Complaint is moot, as such proceedings have been initiated. Id. Finally, defendants argue that, to the extent plaintiff's Complaint attempts to hold defendants liable for the initial seizure of the vehicle by the Maryland State Police, the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. at 3. In particular, defendants maintain that, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(e), the United States cannot be held liable in any action arising out of the seizure of property by State officials, where the property is then transferred to the United States. Id. In addition, they argue that, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2)(C), the United States is expressly authorized to take custody, without a warrant, of property seized by a state. Motion Memo at 13.

Plaintiff's Response does not directly address any of the four grounds. Rather, plaintiff reaffirms her belief that the initial seizure of the vehicle was prohibited, inter alia, by the Fourth Amendment, see generally Response, and argues that the seizure of the vehicle was a taking of private property for public use without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Response at 14.

Discussion

I.

Federal law provides that the proceeds traceable to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 and § 1029 are subject to forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028(g); § 1029(c)(2). The rules governing civil forfeiture are found in 18 U.S.C. § 981 et seq. They provide that the United States may seize property subject to forfeiture “without a warrant if the property was lawfully seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and transferred to a Federal agency.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added). The defendants do not address the gravamen of the complaint—that the property was unlawfully seized by the State, because no warrant was obtained.

When property is seized by a state and then remanded to the custody of the United States, the federal agency...