MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Mr. Montez Freeman ("Plaintiff"), acting pro se, commenced this action pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 ("CAFRA"), seeking return of forfeited assets. Presently before the Court is a "Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA").
For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 30, is granted.
Plaintiff was stopped by federal agents on March 21, 2011, while driving with his girlfriend, Tanesha Williams. ECF No. 12-4 ¶ 6; ECF No. 31 at 2. A search of the residence that Ms. Williams shared with Plaintiff was also conducted that day. ECF No. 12-4 ¶ 13; ECF No. 31 at 2. When Defendant DEA's agents processed Plaintiff, they seized from him a 14-karat white gold and diamond earring and $940.00 in United States currency. ECF No. 12-4 ¶¶ 16, 19, 20; ECF No. 31 at 2. Following the search of the Williams residence, federal agents seized a 10-karat white gold chain and a 10-karat white gold and diamond cross. ECF No. 12-4 ¶¶ 15, 21; ECF No. 31 at 2.
On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff was indicted on a federal charge of conspiracy to distribute heroin. ECF No. 31 at 3. On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff was taken into federal custody.
Defendant DEA instituted civil forfeiture proceedings against the above-described jewelry and currency and these items were ultimately forfeited.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 30, 2014. ECF No. 12. Defendant DEA filed its Motion to Dismiss and brief in support thereof on May 14, 2015. ECF Nos. 30, 31. Plaintiff filed his Response to the Motion to Dismiss and brief in support thereof on June 16, 2015. ECF Nos. 34, 35. Defendant DEA filed a Reply on June 23, 2015. ECF No. 36. The Motion is now ripe for review.
Pro se pleadings, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
As the United States Supreme Court explained in
The scope of review may extend to "matters of public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint and items appearing in the record of the case."
Plaintiff's action is based on the following provision of CAFRA:
18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1).
Plaintiff claims that Defendant DEA did not provide him with sufficient notice of the forfeiture of the jewelry and the currency. In moving to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant DEA asserts both that it provided Plaintiff with reasonable notice and that Plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the seizure.
It is undisputed that the dictates of CAFRA include a notice requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a). In a forfeiture proceeding such as the instant one, conducted pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., written notice must be provided to any person with an interest in the property via certified mail and advertisement and publication on three successive weeks. 21 U.S.C. § 881(d); 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DEA failed to provide sufficient notice because it failed to send such notice to Plaintiff at four addresses known to be his: the Allegheny County Jail, his mother's residence in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Armfield Road in Richmond, Virginia, and Woodbine Street in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 12 at 20.
Defendant DEA asserts that it provided Plaintiff with sufficient notice. Defendant DEA provides copies of notices sent via certified mail and published in the Wall Street Journal. ECF No. 31-4 at 11-29; ECF No. 31-5 at 1-16.
As to the white gold and diamond earring,
As to the white gold chain and cross, Defendant DEA sent two notices to Plaintiff via certified mail: one to the residence of Ms. Williams and one to Attorney Carcia.
As to the $940.00 in United States currency, Defendant DEA sent two notices to Plaintiff via certified mail: one to the residence of Ms. Williams and one to Attorney Carcia. ECF No. 31-5 at 7-10. These notices were signed for and accepted on May 12, 2011.
Defendant DEA also asserts that, contrary to the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff was not incarcerated in the Allegheny County Jail during the relevant time period. ECF No. 31 at 17.
Defendant DEA also asserts that Plaintiff's claim fails because he makes no allegations that he did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within sufficient time. Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of such allegations.
In response to Defendant DEA's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff appears to abandon his claim concerning notice. ECF No. 35. He does not challenge or refute the documents or assertions of Defendant DEA. Instead, he claims that the items in question were illegally seized and should not have been subject to the forfeiture process.
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts concerning his lack of knowledge of the seizure of the items in question. Further, Plaintiff fails to set forth a meaningful response to the Defendant DEA's Motion to Dismiss and the documents attached thereto even where those documents strike at the heart of the his notice-related complaints. Plaintiff has failed to advance a plausible CAFRA claim. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 30, is granted.
AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2015, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, any appeal from this Order must be taken by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed. R. App. P., with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.