Patterson v. Haaland
| Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:21-cv-02391 (RC) |
| Parties | THOMAS PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA HAALAND, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of the Interior, and the UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Re Document Nos.: 12, 13, 14, 15
Thomas Patterson initiated this action for relief from a declaration of forfeiture issued by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”), a component of the Department of the Interior (the “Department”), as to an imported commercial shipment of twenty live tarantula spiders. Patterson claims that the shipment violated no U.S. law, and therefore that the FWS had no authority to seize it. Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), on grounds that Patterson waived his opportunity for judicial review when he elected to file a petition for remission with the agency and that he otherwise lacks standing. Defendants also argue that Patterson failed to state a cognizable claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In addition, Defendants move to waive compliance with Local Rule 7(n)'s requirement to file a certified list of the contents of the administrative record simultaneously with the motion to dismiss.[1]
The Court grants Defendants' motion to waive compliance with Local Rule 7(n) because consideration of the motion to dismiss does not require review of the administrative record.[2] As explained below, the Court also grants Defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Patterson's claim because he waived his opportunity to challenge the forfeiture in court when he filed an administrative petition for remission.[3]
On July 11, 2018, Thomas Patterson imported twenty live tarantula spiders on a commercial shipment from Denmark to Miami, Florida. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at 5, ECF No. 12 (“Def.'s Mot.”). On July 17, 2018, an FWS Inspector notified Patterson in a phone call that the shipment had been seized because it violated Section 3372(a)(2)(A) of the Lacey Act,[4] a federal law prohibiting the import or export of wildlife in violation of a foreign law, because the tarantula spiders' parental stock had been illegally exported from Brazil. Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot. at 1-2; Compl. ¶ 13.
On September 17, 2018, the Atlanta Regional Office of Law Enforcement of the FWS issued Patterson a Notice of Seizure and Proposed Forfeiture (the “Notice”). Ex. 1 to Def's Mot. at 2; Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot. The Notice described the property seized, its value ($14,000), and explained that the property was “imported on or about 07/11/2018 . . . in violation of and in a manner unlawful of the laws and regulations of the United States, specifically: Lacey Act (16 USC 3372(A)): Import - Wildlife; Unlawful import of wildlife in violation of foreign (Brazilian) Law.” Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot. at 1 (internal formatting omitted). The Notice included a chart explaining four “legal options available to” Patterson and their consequences: (1) abandon the property by filing an abandonment form by October 22, 2018; (2) take no action before October 22, 2018, which would result in administrative forfeiture; (3) submit a petition for remission to the FWS by December 16, 2018, which would stop the administrative forfeiture proceedings pending a decision on the petition by the Office of the Regional Solicitor of the Department (the “Solicitor”); or (4) file a seized asset claim by December 16, 2018, which would “be submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office for filing in U.S. District Court as a civil Judicial Forfeiture Action.” Id. at 2. In a paragraph below the chart, the Notice reiterated that taking the fourth option by filing a seized asset claim would cause the matter to “be removed from the agency and forwarded to the Federal court through the U.S. Attorney's Office” where “[i]t will be heard by the United States District Court for the judicial district in which the item was seized.” Id.
On December 4, 2018, Patterson, through his attorney, filed a letter with the FWS. Ex. 3 to Def.'s Mot. The letter is titled “Petition for Remission” in bold, capital letters, has a subject line again labeling it a “petition for remission” and referring to the Notice, and contains a cover sheet to an attached exhibit that once again labels it a petition for remission and refers to the Notice. Id. The Solicitor issued and served Patterson with a written opinion denying his petition on August 14, 2019. Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot. That opinion explained that Patterson could file a supplemental petition requesting reconsideration of the denial by October 14, 2019. Id. On October 9, 2019, Patterson, again through his attorney, filed a supplemental petition. Ex. 4 to Def.'s Mot. This supplemental petition contained a section titled, “Petition for Remission,” which explained that “[o]n December 4, 2018, Mr. Patterson file [sic] a Petition for Remission” and that the petition was denied. Id. at 1.
On January 7, 2020, the Solicitor issued and served Patterson with a written opinion denying his supplemental petition. Ex. 5 to Def.'s Mot. In light of this denial, the opinion stated that the “matter is now concluded” and requested that the FWS “issue a Declaration of Summary Forfeiture” for the seized tarantula spiders. Id. at 13. The following day, on January 8, 2020,[5]the FWS issued the Declaration of Summary Forfeiture, decreeing that the seized tarantula spiders “be forfeited to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” Ex. 6 to Def.'s Mot. On January 18, 2020, Patterson, through his attorney, sent a letter to the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department (“OHA”) requesting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Ex. 7 to Def.'s Mot. On August 4, 2021, OHA dismissed Patterson's request. Ex. 8 to Def.'s Mot. On September 10, 2021, Patterson initiated this action. See Compl.
In 1980, the Department issued regulations establishing a procedure for administrative forfeitures under certain wildlife conservation statutes. 45 Fed.Reg. 17864-65. In 1981, Congress overhauled the Lacey Act to, in relevant part, make it unlawful for any person to “import export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce . . . any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law.” The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-79, 95 Stat. 1074 (1981). The legislation also authorized forfeiture for violation of that prohibition and charged the Secretary of the Interior with its enforcement, including by overseeing the forfeiture process. Id. at 95 Stat. 1076-78. These laws remain in force today, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-78. In response to these changes, in 1982, the Department added the Lacey Act, as amended, to the list of conservation statutes to which its administrative forfeiture regulations applied. 47 Fed.Reg. 56856-61. Apart from an additional amendment in 1985, which increased the cap on the value of property subject to administrative forfeiture from $10,000 to $100,000, the relevant regulations, codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 12.23-.24, have remained the same since.
Section 12.23 provides that, “[a]s soon as practicable following seizure, the Solicitor shall issue a notice of proposed forfeiture,” both by publication in a newspaper and through “reasonable effort . . . to serve the notice personally or by registered or certified mail.” 50 C.F.R. § 12.23(b)(1). The notice must describe the property, and state the time, place and reason for seizure, including citation to the law allegedly violated. Id. The notice also must state “that any person desiring to claim the property must file a claim and a bond” in accordance with other provisions of the section, and that “if a proper claim and bond are not received by the proper office within the time prescribed . . . the property will be declared forfeited to the United States.” Id. Section 12.24 establishes the administrative process for the filing, consideration, and appeal of a petition for remission of property subject to administrative forfeiture. 50 C.F.R. § 12.24.
In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2001). CAFRA overlaid a set of procedural and substantive rules for carrying out civil forfeitures on already existing forfeiture laws like that in the Lacey Act. See id. Most important for present purposes, CAFRA provides that “[a]ny person claiming property seized in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute may file a claim with the appropriate official after the seizure” and that any such claim “may be filed not later than the deadline set forth” in the notice of forfeiture they received. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A)-(B). Filing a claim would trigger a 90-day deadline for the government to file a complaint in U.S. district court or else release the property. Id. § 983(a)(3)(A).
Where no claim is filed and the property is ordered forfeited CAFRA provides only a narrow avenue for relief at law: “Any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with respect to that person's interest in the property ....” Id. § 983(e)(1). CAFRA states plainly that such motion “shall be the exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a...
To continue reading
Request your trial