Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04182/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04182-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPROXIMATELY $144,001 IN UNITED

STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 09-04182 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY

INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court for consideration is the Motion to Stay filed by the United States

of America (“United States”). Having considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority,

and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral

argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The hearing set for May 14, 2010 is VACATED and the

United States’ Motion to Stay is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2009, the United States filed its Complaint in this action seeking

forfeiture of approximately $144,001 (the “seized funds”), which was seized on March 18,

2009, from the residence of James Anthoney Pompey (“Pompey”), in Newark, California. 

(Compl. ¶¶ 7, 17.) Pompey has been charged in Santa Clara County with various criminal

charges arising out of the execution of search warrants and the seizure of those funds. (Id. ¶¶ 7-

Case 3:09-cv-04182-JSW Document 31 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Pompey also is under indictment in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Georgia. (Mot., Ex. B.) 

2 Section 981(g)(3) permits a court to conclude a stay is not warranted “if a

protective order limiting discovery would protect the interest of one party without unfairly

limiting the ability of the opposing party to pursue the civil case,” unless the effect of “such

protective order would be to allow one party to pursue discovery while the other party is

substantially unable to do so.” Although Pompey urges the Court to fashion a protective

order in lieu of imposing a stay, the Court finds that a stay is warranted and denies this

request.

2

8, 16-19; Mot., Ex. A.)1

 On October 23, 2009, Pompey filed a Verified Claim to the seized

funds, and on November 12, 2009, he filed an Answer.

The United States now moves to stay this action pending resolution of both criminal

proceedings on the basis that allowing Pompey to go forward with discovery in this matter

would prejudice the prosecution of the pending criminal proceedings.

ANALYSIS

(1) Upon motion of the United States, the court shall stay the civil

forfeiture proceeding if the court determines that civil discovery will

adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal

investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case.

...

(4) In this subsection, the terms “related criminal case” and “related

criminal investigation” mean an actual prosecution or investigation in

progress at the time at which the request for the stay, or any subsequent

motion to lift the stay is made. In determining whether a criminal case or

investigation is “related” to a civil forfeiture proceeding, the court shall

consider the degree of similarity between the parties, witnesses, facts, and

circumstances involved in the two proceedings, without requiring an

identity with respect to any one or more factors.

18 U.S.C. § 981(g) (emphasis added).2

The United States has submitted two declarations filed under seal and ex parte to

support its position that this matter should be stayed. Although Pompey objects to these

submissions, the plain language of the statute permits the United States to submit evidence in

support of its motion on an ex parte basis, “in order to avoid disclosing any matter that may

adversely affect an ongoing criminal investigation or a pending criminal trial.” Id. § 981(g)(5). 

The Court has reviewed the sealed evidence and finds no basis to revisit its earlier decision to

grant the application to file the Declaration of Susan Gray under seal. In addition, the Court

Case 3:09-cv-04182-JSW Document 31 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

GRANTS the United States’ application to file the Declaration of Special Agent Anthony

Herrera under seal and on an ex parte basis. (Docket No. 28.)

Pompey argues that the Court should not stay this matter because the statute is limited to

investigations or proceedings that are conducted by the federal government, rather than by state

governments. (See Opp. Br. at 1:19-2:9.) Pompey cites no authority in support of this

argument, and the Court does not find it persuasive. A fair reading of the statute demonstrates

that a stay shall be granted if civil discovery would adversely affect either “the ability of the

Government to conduct a related criminal investigation” or would adversely affect “the

prosecution of a related criminal case.”

The Court has reviewed the under seal declarations and concludes that the United States

has met its burden to show that the state court proceeding is a “related” criminal case under

Section 981(g)(4). In addition, the Court finds that the United States has met its burden to show

that civil discovery would adversely affect the prosecution of the state court proceeding. 

Accordingly, the motion to stay is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States’ motion to stay. The

Court HEREBY ORDERS the United States to file status reports every 45 days regarding the

status of both pending criminal proceedings and the continued need for stay. The first status

report shall be due 45 days from the date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-04182-JSW Document 31 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3