Martin v. Leonhart
Decision Date | 15 June 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 09-1747(EGS) |
Citation | 717 F.Supp.2d 92 |
Parties | Randy D. MARTIN, Tiana Dupree, Plaintiffs, v. Michele LEONHART, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Agency, in her official capacity, of Homeland Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Christopher Aldo Porco, Law Offices of Christopher Aldo Porco, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
John G. Interrante, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
This action involves plaintiffs' request for the return of $19,800 in U.S. Currency (the "funds") seized by agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") from Plaintiff Tiana Dupree ("Dupree") in Washington, D.C. during a random drug search of an overnight Amtrak train traveling from Miami, Florida to New York, New York on August 8, 2008. Pending before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and reply thereto, the applicable law, and for the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss.
On or about August 1, 2008, Plaintiff Randy Martin ("Martin")-a New York resident-allegedly went to Florida on vacation and to look at a car that he was interested in buying for his girlfriend, Dupree. Compl. ¶ 10. Martin brought approximately $20,000 in U.S. Currency to Florida in order to purchase the car.Compl. ¶ 11. On or about August 8, 2008, after deciding not to buy the car, Martin asked Dupree-who was returning to New York-"to bring the money ... back home to his safe because he was going to stay in Florida for a few more days and he wanted the money secured in his safe while he was on vacation." Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17. After boarding an Amtrak train headed for New York, Dupree took the money from Martin and "placed it in her eyeglass case for safekeeping." Compl. ¶ 18.
On or about August 8, 2008, Dupree was awakened by a knock on the door of her sleeper car by DEA agents conducting a random drug search on the train. Compl. ¶ 21. After inspecting Dupree's ticket, the DEA agents searched Dupree's room. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23. During the course of this search, the DEA Agents "dumped out the contents of Ms. Dupree's purse, opened her eyeglass case, and removed the $19,800 in U.S. currency which was in the case." Compl. ¶ 24. After being confronted about the money, Dupree indicated that it belonged to her boyfriend-Martin. Compl. ¶ 26. One of the DEA agents then called Martin, who confirmed that the money belonged to him. See Compl. ¶¶ 27-32. After ending the phone call with Martin, the DEA Agent purportedly remarked to another DEA agent: "He's Jamaican." Compl. ¶ 33. The DEA Agent then seized the $19,800 from Dupree's eyeglass case, gave Dupree a receipt for the money, apologized for the inconvenience, and told Dupree to call a number on a business card he handed her to get the money back. Compl. ¶ 34. No arrest was made, nor were any drugs found in connection with the search of Dupree. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. After Martin called the telephone number that the DEA agents had provided, he was informed that he would receive information in the mail regarding the seized funds. Compl. ¶ 37.
On September 30, 2008, the DEA mailed a Notice of Seizure (the "Notice") to Martin and Dupree, as well as their attorney. See Compl. ¶ 39; see also Def.'s Ex. 1-4, Notices of Seizure. The Notice lists the seized property as "$19,800 U.S. Currency" and the owner as "Tania Dupree." Def.'s Ex. 1. The Notice further states, in relevant part:
The above-described property was seized by the [DEA] for forfeiture pursuant to [21 U.S.C. § 881], because the property was used or acquired as a result of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.... Pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 983 and 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1619], procedures to administratively forfeit this property are underway. You may petition the DEA for return of the property (remission or mitigation), and/or you may contest the seizure and forfeiture of the property in Federal Court.
Def.'s Ex. 1; see also infra Section II ( ). Plaintiffs received this Notice. Compl. ¶ 40.1
On October 10, 2008, counsel for plaintiffs sent the following letter to the DEA requesting the return of the $19,800 in seized funds (the "October 10, 2008 Letter"):
Def.'s Ex. 10. The letter was accompanied by sworn declarations from Dupree and Martin, captioned "Petition for the Return of Money." See Def.'s Ex. 10.
On October 20, 2008, the DEA mailed a form letter to plaintiffs, indicating that Def.'s Ex. 11. By letters dated December 26, 2008 and March 12, 2009, plaintiffs' counsel requested updates regarding the status of his October 10, 2008 Letter requesting the return of funds. See Def.'s Exs. 13, 16.
On March 23, 2009-while plaintiffs' October 10, 2008 Letter was still under administrative review-the DEA issued a Declaration of Forfeiture (the "Declaration"), whereby the $19,800 in seized funds were forfeited to the United States pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1609. See Def.'s Ex. 17.2
On March 24, 2009, the DEA denied plaintiffs' petition for the return of money. See generally Def.'s Ex. 18. With regards to Dupree, the DEA explained that remission or mitigation was inappropriate because "Ms. Dupree has failed to demonstrate any interest in the forfeited currency as an owner or a lienholder, as required by Federal regulation." Def.'s Ex. 18 at 2. Next, with regards to Martin, the DEA found that he failed to provide any documentation substantiating his allegation that he was "the owner of thecash" or "a legitimate source for the seized funds." See Def.'s Ex. 18 at 2 ( ). While the letter also apprised plaintiffs of their right to file a motion for reconsideration, no such motion was filed.
On September 15, 2009, plaintiffs-represented by new counsel-filed suit in this Court alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See Compl. ¶¶ 55-73. Plaintiffs principally argue that the DEA erred in failing to initiate judicial forfeiture proceedings, explaining that their October 10, 2008 Letter to the DEA asserted a claim-not a petition for remission or mitigation-and that administrative forfeiture of the seized funds was therefore inappropriate. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 45, 56-60; 3 see generally infra Section II ( ). Plaintiffs seek, among other things, return of the funds for defendant's failure to file a complaint for judicial forfeiture in a federal district court within 90 days of plaintiffs' October 10, 2008 Letter. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(B). On December 23, 2009, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. This motion is now ripe for determination by the Court.
The funds at issue in this case were seized for forfeiture pursuant to Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which provides that all funds traceable as proceeds to a violation of the federal narcotics laws are subject to forfeiture by the United States. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a), (d); see also Def.'s Ex. 1, Notice of Seizure ("The above-described property was seized by the [DEA] for forfeiture pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 881, because the property was used or acquired as a result of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act[.]"). Such forfeitures are governed by the customs laws relating to forfeiture. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(d)....
To continue reading
Request your trial- Am. Bus Ass'n v. Rogoff, s. 10–5213
-
United States v. $20, 000.00 in U.S. Currency
... ... in the property and state the facts and circumstances ... justifying remission or mitigation.” Martin v ... Leonhart , 717 F.Supp.2d 92, 97 (D.D.C. 2010) ... Morales-Vélez ... argues that he submitted a claim on January ... ...
-
Patterson v. Haaland
... ... and [plaintiff] has not alleged, and it does not appear, that ... the notice was faulty”); Martin v. Leonhart, ... 717 F.Supp.2d 92, 100 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding, due to ... plaintiff's failure to file a timely claim contesting a ... ...
-
Cohen-Sanchez v. United States
...by counsel when she filed her response to the DEA's Notice of Seizure - filed a Petition, not a Claim. See Martin v. Leonhart, 717 F.Supp.2d 92, 98 (D. D.C. 2010) and Pert v. United States, 2011 WL 1792767, at *4 (D. Nev. May 11, 2011) (refusing to countenance petitioners' post hoc attempts......