U.S. v. $746,198 in U.S. Currency, More or Less

• Decision Date: 20 January 2004
• Docket Number: No. 1:02-CV-90026.,1:02-CV-90026.
• Citation: U.S. v. $746,198 in U.S. Currency, More or Less, 299 F.Supp.2d 923 (S.D. Iowa 2004)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $746,198 in U.S. Currency, more or less, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

Page 923

299 F.Supp.2d 923

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.$746,198 in U.S. Currency, more or less, Defendant.

No. 1:02-CV-90026.

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Western Division.

January 20, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Craig Peyton Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher A. Kragnes, Des Moines, IA, Ben M. Gonek, Pleasant Ridge, MI, for Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PRATT, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff, United States of America's, Motion for Summary Judgment against ClaimantLawrence Edward Armstrong("Armstrong").Armstrong filed a resistance to the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply brief.Both parties request a hearing on the matter.The Court does not believe, based on the facts of this case, that a hearing is warranted.Accordingly, the matter is fully submitted.

I.FACTS

The facts of this case are generally undisputed for purposes of the present motion.On January 16, 2002, Iowa State Patrol TrooperTodd Bentley performed a traffic stop on a blue Chrysler Sebring that was traveling approximately 73 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour speed zone.Armstrong was driving the vehicle and was accompanied by a female, later identified as Diana Smith("Smith").Trooper Bentley asked Armstrong for his license and registration and Armstrong complied.The vehicle was registered in the name of Thrifty Rental Car and Smith was listed as an authorized driver.Trooper Bentley eventually requested permission to search the vehicle and was granted consent by Smith.¹A canine unit eventually was called to the scene and alerted to the trunk of the vehicle.Trooper Bentley opened the trunk and found two locked suitcases.Both Armstrong and Smith claimed that the keys were in a black bag in the rental car.No key was located, but Trooper Bentley, who had been joined by Officer Lutter, opened the suitcases with a knife.Inside each suitcase were large amounts of cash, wrapped in vacuum sealed plastic.It was eventually determined that the suitcases contained four bundles of cash, totaling $746,198 in United States currency.

On July 2, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint in this matter, alleging that the currency was seized from Lawrence Armstrong on January 16, 2002 and was subject to forfeiture under various theories.On August 21, 2002, Armstrong filed a Verified Claim in which he claimed to own the currency and to "have a full ownership interest" in it.Armstrong later filed a document asserting that he was "an innocent owner of the [Defendant] currency."

According to Armstrong, the defendant property was "given to Lawrence Armstrong by [his]father when he was dying in March of 2001."Armstrong claims that his father worked in a block factory and discovered the property in an old building he was working on in Detroit.Armstrong's father took the money, placed it in large plastic trash bags, and eventually gave it to Armstrong, for his personal use, with advice not to tell anyone about it.Armstrong's father did not disclose the discovery of the money to the owners of the building or to the contractors for whom he was working.Neither Armstrong nor his father ever told the police about the money and made no effort to find the rightful owners of the money.Armstrong eventually hid the money under the basement steps of his home and was taking the money from Detroit to Las Vegas when the money was seized by Trooper Bentley.

II.STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment has a special place in civil litigation.The device "has proven its usefulness as a means of avoiding fulldress trials in unwinnable cases, thereby freeing courts to utilize scarce judicial resources in more beneficial ways."Mesnick v. General Elec. Co.,950 F.2d 816, 822(1st Cir.1991).In operation, the role of summary judgment is to pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required.Seeid.;see alsoGarside v. Osco Drug, Inc.,895 F.2d 46, 50(1st Cir.1990).

"[S]ummary judgment is an extreme remedy, and one which is not to be granted unless the movant has established his right to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy and that the other party is not entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances."Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chemical Interchange Co.,541 F.2d 207, 209(8th Cir.1976)(citingWindsor v. Bethesda General Hospital,523 F.2d 891, 893 n. 5(8th Cir.1975)).The purpose of the rule is not "to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try,"Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc.,368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458(1962)(quotingSartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.,321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967(1944)), but to avoid "useless, expensive and time-consuming trials where there is actually no genuine, factual issue remaining to be tried,"Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Indus., Inc.,545 F.2d 1127, 1129(8th Cir.1976)(citingLyons v. Board of Educ.,523 F.2d 340, 347(8th Cir.1975)).

The plain language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).The precise standard for granting summary judgment is well-established and oft-repeated: summary judgment is properly granted when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,37 F.3d 379, 382(8th Cir.1994).The Court does not weigh the evidence nor make credibility determinations, rather the court only determines whether there are any disputed issues and, if so, whether those issues are both genuine and material.SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986);Wilson v. Myers,823 F.2d 253, 256(8th Cir.1987)("Summary judgment is not designed to weed out dubious claims, but to eliminate those claims with no basis in material fact.")(citingWeight Watchers of Quebec, Ltd. v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.,398 F.Supp. 1047, 1055(E.D.N.Y.1975)).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact based on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any.SeeCelotex,477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Anderson,477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.Once the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by affidavits or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is genuine issue for trial.SeeFed. R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e);Celotex Corp.,477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Anderson,477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505."[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat a motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact."Anderson,477 U.S. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505(emphasis added).An issue is "genuine," if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.Seeid. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505."As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material ....Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted."Id.

III.ANALYSIS

The issue presented to the Court in the present Motion for Summary Judgment is a narrow one: Does Armstrong possess standing to contest the forfeiture of the seized United States currency?The Government cites three alternative theories upon which it claims Armstrong lacks standing to contest the forfeiture.First, the Government argues that, under applicable Michigan law, Armstrong cannot be a legitimate owner of the defendant property because the money was stolen by his father.Second, the Government claims that Armstrong lacks standing because neither he nor his father complied with the Michigan statutory scheme that allows finders of lost property to keep that which they have found if the owners cannot be located.Finally, the Government claims that Armstrong lacks standing under Article III of the United States Constitution insofar as he has no ownership interest in the defendant property.

Article III standing is a threshold question in every federal court case.United States v. One Lincoln Navigator 1998,328 F.3d 1011, 1013(8th Cir.2003)."[T]he doctrine of standing serves to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process."Whitmore v. Arkansas,495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135(1990)."[T]he question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue."United States v. 1998 BMW "I" Convertible,235 F.3d 397, 399(8th Cir.2000)(quotingFlast v. Cohen,392 U.S. 83, 99-100, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947(1968));see alsoSierra Club v. Morton,405 U.S. 727, 731, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636(1972)(a litigant must possess "a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy").

Article III requires a showing of actual or threatened injury, causation by the challenged action, and redressability by the adjudication of the claim.SeeValley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State,454 U.S....