U.S. Dep't of Treasury v. Seized Fed. Sec.
Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 3:21-cv-393-D-BN,3:21-cv-393-D-BN |
Parties | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Plaintiff, v. SEIZED FEDERAL SECURITIES, Defendant, DUANE L. BERRY, BOP Register No. 62250-019, Interested Party. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
This pro se action was filed by Duane L. Berry, a federal prisoner housed at Federal Medical Center Butner.
Mr. Berry was indicted on charges of "perpetrating false information and hoaxes" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1038 in the Eastern District of Michigan. Order of Commitment to Att'y Gen. (Doc. No. 45) at 2, United States v. Berry, No. 2:15-cr-20743 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2016). That district court found that Mr. Berry suffered from a "mental disease" which made him unable to "assist properly in his defense" and ordered him committed to the custody of the Attorney General and hospitalized to determine whether he might attain capacity to permit further proceedings. Id. at 3-4.
Berry v. Fox, 704 F. App'x 789, 789 (10th Cir. 2017) (Kelly, J. ord.); see also Berry, No. 2:15-cr-20743, Dkt. No. 207 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2019) ( ).
Berry initiated this civil forfeiture action in the name of a United States agency, identifying himself as a Federal Trustee. See generally Dkt. No. 2. And Senior United States District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater referred Berry's case to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
It is apparent from the complaint that Berry is not authorized to proceed on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. And, while, under certain statutes, "[a] qui tam relator [may sue] on behalf of the government as an agent of the government, 'which is always the real party in interest,'" Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 458 F. Supp. 2d 958, 962 (E.D. Ark. 2006) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Rodgers v. Arkansas, 154 F.3d 865, 868 (8th Cir. 1998)), Berry has identified no authority providing for an action on behalf of the United States.
Nor may Berry, as a nonlawyer, prosecute a qui tam pro se. See U.S. ex rel. Brooks v. Ormsby, 869 F.3d 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2017) () .
Berry therefore lacks standing to bring this suit. And the Court should dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Gohmert v. Pence, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 6:20-cv-660-JDK, 2021 WL 17141, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 1, 2021) ( , aff'd, 832 F. App'x 349 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
The Court should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state...
To continue reading
Request your trial