US v. REAL PROP. 24124 LEMAY ST., WEST HILLS, CA

• Decision Date: 15 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. CV 90-5923-RSWL (Sx).,CV 90-5923-RSWL (Sx).
• Citation: 857 F. Supp. 1373
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24124 LEMAY STREET, WEST HILLS, CALIFORNIA, Defendant. Robert W. Walters, Claimant.

857 F. Supp. 1373

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24124 LEMAY STREET, WEST HILLS, CALIFORNIA, Defendant Robert W. Walters, Claimant.

No. CV 90-5923-RSWL (Sx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

June 15, 1994.

Lourdes G. Baird, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.

Ronn A. Pisapia, Judith W. Acampora, Hal M. Marzell, City of Industry, CA, and Irwindale, CA, for claimant Home Sav. of America.

Peter N. Priamos, Torrance, CA, for claimant Robert W. Walters.

ORDER

LEW, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

After the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Austin v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case for a determination of whether forfeiture of the Defendant Property constituted an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The parties submitted arguments regarding the excessiveness issue and the Court took this matter under submission. After carefully considering the arguments submitted and reviewing the various approaches of several courts, this Court finds that forfeiture of the Defendant Property does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 10, 1990, agents of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement obtained a search warrant for the Defendant Property — a single family, single story residence on a lot located at 24124 Lemay Street in West Hills, California. The Defendant Property was owned by Claimant, Robert M. Walters. The government obtained the warrant based upon information from a confidential informant who had personal knowledge of illegal narcotics activity occurring on the property. Specifically, the confidential informant told the government that Claimant had sold narcotics on the property during the previous four years.

After obtaining the warrant on October 10, 1990, the agents searched the Defendant Property and found evidence of narcotics activity. In addition to finding 108 three-inch marijuana plants growing in a hydroponic garden located in the garage, the agents discovered a four-foot tall marijuana plant in one of the bathrooms, a "brick" of cocaine and a Tupperware container with $40,000 in U.S. currency both buried in the garden. In addition, the agents seized $14,641 in U.S. currency found throughout the residence.

On May 29, 1991, Claimant pleaded guilty in Los Angeles County Superior Court to one count of possession of cocaine for sale and one count of cultivation of marijuana in violation of California Health and Safety Code sections 11351 and 11358, respectively. Claimant was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

On November 2, 1990, the United States Government filed an in rem forfeiture complaint against the property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7).¹ The Government alleged that the Defendant Property was subject to forfeiture because it was used to store and distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of Title 21 of the United States Code. On November 27, 1990, the Defendant Property was arrested, seized, and placed in the custody of the United States Marshals Service. Claimant filed a verified claim and answer as owner of the property.

Pursuant to the civil forfeiture action, the Government deposed Claimant on July 17, 1991. In the presence of his attorney, Claimant admitted that he had planted and owned the 108 marijuana plants found in the garage. He admitted that he had constructed the hydroponic garden to grow the marijuana and also admitted to owning the marijuana plant found in the bathroom. Claimant denied ownership of the $40,000 found in the Tupperware container and denied ownership of the cocaine. Claimant, however, acknowledged ownership of the $14,641.00 found throughout the property.

On August 23, 1991, the Government moved for summary judgment on its forfeiture action. Claimant opposed the motion and arguments were heard on December 9, 1991 at which time this Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment and issued a judgment of forfeiture against the Defendant Property. Claimant subsequently appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing, inter alia, that the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines clause.² Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, the court invited Claimant to petition for a rehearing if the Supreme Court's decision in Austin v. United States validated his Eighth Amendment argument. See United States v. 24124 Lemay Street, 996 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir.1993). After the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Austin v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for a determination of whether the forfeiture constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. 24124 Lemay Street, 996 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, this Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental documents focusing solely on the issue of whether the forfeiture constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. After a hearing on the matter, this Court took the matter under submission and this Order follows.

III. DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The moving party bears the initial responsibility of identifying an absence of a genuine material issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 (1986). On issues where the movant will not have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may meet its burden simply by showing that there is an "absence of evidence" to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2554. The nonmoving party must then designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. Rule 56 requires entry of summary judgment 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. Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. Where the opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial, its evidence must meet the quantum of proof at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986).

Claimant raises the issue of whether the Eighth Amendment excessiveness determination is a question of law appropriate for the court to decide or a question of fact that should be left to the trier of fact. This Court, however, finds that the determination of whether a civil forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is a question of law suitable for determination by the Court. Although other courts have raised similar concerns as Claimant, see United States v. RR # 1, Box 224, 14 F.3d 864, 876 (3d Cir.1994) (noting that neither Austin nor Alexander v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993), addressed question of whether judge or jury should determine excessiveness issue), the majority of cases since the Supreme Court's decision in Austin have treated the Eighth Amendment issue as a question of law. See, e.g., United States v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221 (4th Cir.1993) (remanding case for proportionality determination by the district court pursuant to Austin); United States v. 6625 Zumirez Drive, 845 F.Supp. 725, 742 (C.D.Cal.1994) (granting summary judgment after finding that forfeiture would violate Excessive Fines Clause); United States v. 429 South Main Street, 843 F.Supp. 337, 342 (S.D.Ohio 1993) (granting summary judgment where claimant had not produced evidence to support claim under Excessive Fines Clause); United States v. 9638 Chicago Heights, 831 F.Supp. 736, 737 (E.D.Mo.1993) (granting summary judgment after finding that forfeiture was not excessive under Eighth Amendment); see also Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3010-11, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (leaving Eighth Amendment analysis to the court); Austin, ___ U.S. at ____, 113 S.Ct. at 2812, 125 L.Ed.2d at 506 (declining to establish multifactor test for determining excessiveness but directing lower courts to "consider that question in the first instance."); but see United States v. 835 Seventh Street Rensselaer, 832 F.Supp. 43, 49 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (question of excessiveness entails a complicated and fact-specific analysis).

This Court's conclusion that an Eighth Amendment violation raises a question of law is supported by the similar treatment of other alleged constitutional violations. Alleged search and seizure violations under the Fourth Amendment raise questions of law, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 33, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1630, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 738 (1963); United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185, 106 S.Ct. 2923, 91 L.Ed.2d 551 (1986), as well as alleged deprivations of due process under the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410, 1419 (9th Cir.1986). In addition, alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause are treated as questions of law, see United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 450, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1903, 104 L.Ed.2d 487, 502 (1989), as well as allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Williams v. Raines, 783 F.2d 774, 775-76 (9th Cir.1986). Accordingly, where the underlying material facts are uncontroverted, the Court may determine whether a forfeiture constitutes a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment as a matter of law.

B. AUSTIN v. UNITED STATES

In Austin v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, ____-____, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2804-05, 125 L.Ed.2d 488, 496-97 (1993), the United States Supreme Court conclusively rejected...