Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02226/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02226-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ten (10) Firearms, Eleven (11) Rounds of

Ammunition; and $32,760.00 in U.S.

Currency. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2226-PHX-LOA

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

AND ORDER

On May 7, 2008, a default evidentiary hearing was held on Plaintiff’s Motion

for Default Judgment. (docket # 15) Plaintiff was represented by Emory T. Hurley,

Assistant United States Attorney. Special Agent Paul T. Bungay, Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, and Special Agent Hope MacAllister, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms, were sworn and testified. The matter was taken under advisement pending

submission of post-hearing memorandum on the issue of the timeliness of the subject

Complaint. Court proceedings were electronically recorded.

After considering all the pleadings submitted to date, the relevant case law, the

sworn testimony and exhibits received in evidence, the Court hereby enters the following

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

///

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 1 of 10
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

- 2 -

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This civil in rem action was commenced on November 16, 2007 with the

filing of the Complaint to enforce the provisions of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) for

alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) and to forfeit and condemn certain property

to the United States of America. (docket # 1)

2. On March 16, 2007, Special Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives, executed federal search warrants at the residence of Pedro Ivan

Alvillar-Torres located at 11000 W. Frier Drive, Glendale, AZ 85307. Upon entering the

residence, the agents detained Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and a Hispanic female, who was

later identified as the common-law wife of Alvillar-Torres, Rosa Esmeralda Medina-Garcia.

(Id. at ¶ 10)

3. During the execution of the search warrants, the agents recovered ten (10)

firearms (listed above in ¶ 4 below), eleven (11) rounds of ammunition, and $32,760.00 in

U.S. Currency. (Id. at ¶ 11)

4. The Defendant property seized by Special Agents of the ATF on March 16,

2007, pursuant to a Federal Search Warrant are more specifically described as follows:

a. Rifle, Cal 7.62 Century Arms, M70B1 M70B00929

b. Rifle, Cal .233 Colt, AR-15 LGC035666

c. Rifle, Cal .22 Ruger, 10/22 235-59653

d. Rifle, Cal 5.56 Kel-Tec, SU-16 N4051

e. Rifle, Cal 7.62 Century Arms, M70AB2 M70AB03139

f. Pistol Handgun, Cal .223 Bushmaster, Carbon 15 D10556 with box

g. Revolver, Cal .22 Derringer L073694

h. Pistol Handgun, Cal .9 SWD M-11 87-0007173

I. Pistol Handgun, Cal .380 Cobra CA-380 CPO27585 with box

j. Pistol Handgun, Cal .45 Taurus PT145 NXA43212 with 11 rounds of

ammunition

k. $32,760.00 in U.S. Currency

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 2 of 10
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 -

(Id. at ¶ 9)

5. Plaintiff has voluntarily consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (docket # 3) 

6. The above-captioned Defendant property is subject to forfeiture, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), because the Defendant property represents personal property within

the jurisdiction of the United States, and constitutes firearms, ammunition and currency

involved in violation of:

a. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), making it unlawful for any person

who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States to ship, transport, receive, or possess

firearms or ammunition that have traveled in or affected interstate commerce;

b. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), making it unlawful for any person to

engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a license;

c. Title 18 U.S.C. § § 924(d)(2)(C) and 924(d)(3)(C), which provides

for forfeiture in any offense described in section 922(a)(1), where a firearm intended to be

used in such offense is involved in a pattern of activities which includes a violation of section

922(a)(1)(A), manufacturing and dealing without a Federal Firearms License. 

d. Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(n), making it unlawful for any person to travel

from any state or foreign country into any other state to acquire or attempt to acquire a

firearm to sell without a Federal Firearms License. 

7. The above-captioned Defendant currency is subject to forfeiture, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C), because such currency is comprised of funds involved

in a transaction(s) or attempted transaction(s) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957,

or property traceable to such property. 

8. On April 10, 2007, the United States obtained an indictment in United States

v. Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres, CR07-402-PHX-SMM, containing an allegation that the

Defendant property was subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C. § 924(d).

9. By June 20, 2007, ATF had begun administrative forfeiture of the

Defendant property. Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and his wife, Sandra Elizabeth Contreras

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 3 of 10
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

- 4 -

(“Claimants”), by and through their attorney, Alejandro E. Muñoz, had filed a claim to the

property held by ATF in the non-judicial civil forfeiture proceeding. Thereafter, the matter

was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for initiation of judicial forfeiture proceedings.

10. On September 14, 2007, the Government, and potential or putative

Claimants, through their counsel Alejandro E. Muñoz, filed a Motion/Stipulation to Extend

Time to File Complaint for Forfeiture and/or to Obtain Indictment Alleging Forfeiture in the

matter of In Re: Non-Judicial Civil Forfeiture Proceeding Involving Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Seizures of: Ten (10) Firearms, Eleven (11) Rounds of

Ammunition, and $32,760.00 in United States Currency, Case Number MC07-0084-PHX-EHC, which requested the district court to extend the 18 U.S.C. § 983 time

limit in which the United States is required to file a complaint for forfeiture or obtain an

indictment from its original date of September 18, 2007 to November 16, 2007.

11. On October 9, 2007, the Honorable Earl H. Carroll, Senior United States

District Judge, “ORDERED under 18 U.S.C. § 983(A)-(C), that the date by which the United

States is required to file a complaint for forfeiture against the property and/or to obtain an

indictment alleging that the property is subject to forfeiture is extended to November 16,

2007.” (docket # 3 at 2 in MC-07-0084-PHX-EHC)

12. On November 16, 2007, the United States filed its Verified Complaint for

Forfeiture In Rem in the subject case. (docket # 1)

13. Counsel for Plaintiff has served, and/or attempted service of its Notice of

and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture, on all persons who are believed to have an interest in

the Defendant property sought to be defaulted, including potential or putative Claimants

Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and Sandra Elizabeth Contreras, husband and wife. 

14. On and after September 8, 2008, Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres was, and is,

an illegal alien unlawfully residing in the United States.

15. Neither Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres nor Rosa Esmeralda Medina-Garcia

have ever been properly licensed as a Federal Firearms Dealer.

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 4 of 10
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

- 5 -

16. At all times relevant to this case, Rosa Esmeralda Medina-Garcia was, and

is, an illegal alien unlawfully residing in the United States.

17. On November 20, 2007, the Government served, via certified mail, direct

Notice of Forfeiture and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture upon Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres,

at his residence, 11000 West Frier Drive, Glendale, Arizona 85307. 

18. The notice to Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres was received on November 21,

2007, as reflected in the Notice of Service completed on November 21, 2007, filed with

District Court on November 28, 2007. (docket # 4) 

19. The content of the Notice of Forfeiture complied with the requirements of

Rule G(4)(b)(ii) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture

Claims (“Supplemental Rules”). 

20. On December 7, 2007, the Government served, via certified mail, direct

Notice of Forfeiture Action and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture upon Alejandro E. Muñoz,

Esq., The Muñoz Law Firm, P.C., 55 West Franklin Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701. 

21. The direct notice sent to Alejandro E. Muñoz was received on December

10, 2007, as reflected in the Notice of Service complete on December 10, 2007, filed with

District Court on December 12, 2007. (docket # 6)

22. The content of this Notice of Forfeiture complied with the requirements of

Rule G(4)(b)(ii) of the Supplemental Rules. 

23. On June 20, 2007, Alejandro E. Muñoz represented potential or putative

Claimants Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and Sandra Elizabeth Contreras in a related

administrative forfeiture proceeding involving the subject Defendant property when attorney

Muñoz filed a Claim and Request for Judicial Forfeiture on behalf of such potential or

putative Claimants.

24. In the matter of In Re: Non-Judicial Civil Forfeiture Proceeding involving

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seizures of: Ten (10) Firearms, Eleven

(11) Rounds of Ammunition and $32,760.00 in United States Currency, MC-07-0084-PHXEHC, Alejandro E. Muñoz represented potential or putative Claimants Pedro Ivan AlvillarCase 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 5 of 10
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

- 6 -

Torres and Sandra Elizabeth Contreras, in a non-judicial civil forfeiture proceeding involving

the subject Defendant property. 

25. Alejandro E. Muñoz, attorney at law, clearly represented such potential or

putative Claimants in the related administrative forfeiture proceeding when attorney Muñoz

submitted potential or putative Claimants’ Claim and Request for Judicial Forfeiture.

26. Alejandro E. Muñoz, attorney at law, clearly represented potential or

putative Claimants when attorney Muñoz executed the motion/stipulation to extend time in

Case No. MC-07-0084-PHX-EHC, as “Attorney for Claimants.” (Case No. MC-07-0084-

PHX-EHC; docket # 1).

27. As counsel for potential or putative Claimants in a related administrative

forfeiture proceeding, the Notice of Forfeiture Action and Verified Complaint in the instant

case were properly served upon attorney Muñoz, pursuant to Supplemental Rule

G(4)(b)(iii)(B).

 28. Supplemental Rule G(5)(a) provides: “(i) A person who asserts an interest

in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the

action is pending. The claim must: (A) identify the specific property claimed; (B) identify

the claimant and state the claimant’s interest in the property; (C) be signed by the claimant

under penalty of perjury; and (D) be served on the government attorney designated under

Rule G(4)(1)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D).” Supplemental Rule G(5)(a).

29. When direct notice of the action has been provided to a potential claimant,

then, pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(ii)(B) & (C), “a deadline for filing a claim [is

imposed], at least 35 days after the notice is sent,” and an “answer or a motion under Rule

12[, FED.R.CIV.P.,] must be filed no later than 20 days after filing the claim.” Supplemental

Rule G(4)(b)(ii)(B) & (C) (emphasis added).

30. Direct notice was duly sent to potential or putative Claimants Pedro Ivan

Alvillar-Torres and Sandra Elizabeth Contreras through their counsel, Alejandro E. Muñoz,

as indicated by the receipt of certified mail, dated December 10, 2007. (docket 6)

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 6 of 10
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

- 7 -

 31. The United States Marshal for the District of Arizona gave public notice

of this action and arrest of Defendant property to all persons by advertisement in the Arizona

Business Gazette on December 20, 2007, December 27, 2007 and January 3, 2008, as

reflected in the Affidavit of Publication, filed on March 17, 2008. (docket # 11)

32. On March 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment and

electronically mailed a copy to Alejandro E. Muñoz, Esq., The Muñoz Law Firm, P.C., 55

West Franklin Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701, ensuring maximum possible notice to potential

or putative Claimants, Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and Sandra Elizabeth Contreras. (docket

# 15 at 9)

33. On April 21, 2008, Alejandro E. Muñoz, Esq. filed a second Motion to

Withdraw as counsel for Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and Sandra Elizabeth Contreras that

properly complied with LRCiv 83.3(b)(2), indicating he “has not had any contact whatsoever

with Claimants since Friday, September 21, 2007.” (docket # 21)

34. Alejandro E. Muñoz’ Motion to Withdraw was granted on April 21, 2008.

35. This Court takes judicial notice that Attorney Muñoz represents Pedro Ivan

Alvillar-Torres, currently a fugitive from justice who absconded after posting a $60,000.00

secured bond, in CR-07-402-PHX-SMM.

36. Neither potential or putative Claimants Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and

Sandra Elizabeth Contreras, nor their counsel, have filed an answer, Rule 12 responsive

pleading or claim in this matter as required by Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(ii)(B) & (C) and

Supplemental Rule G(5)(a).

37. Nothing has been received from Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres and Sandra

Elizabeth Contreras, either pro se or by counsel, and the time for filing a verified claim or

answer has substantially passed. No other persons have entered an appearance or filed a

claim in this action. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1355, which vests district courts with original jurisdiction in “any action or

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 7 of 10
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

- 8 -

proceeding for the . . . enforcement of any . . . forfeiture . . . incurred under any Act of

Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1355; also 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

2. This Magistrate Judge has jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against the

Defendant property and potential or putative Claimants. United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d

1312, 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that in an in rem civil forfeiture action wherein only the

plaintiff consented, magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter a final judgment over defaulted

person who was technically not a “party” to the litigation); United States v. N. Golden

State Blvd., 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St., 125

F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 1997).

3. The administrative forfeiture of the Defendant property having commenced

within 120 days of its seizure and the instant forfeiture action was timely filed pursuant to

Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(d). This section specifies that “any action or proceeding for the

forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days

of such seizure.” The time limitation contained in 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) requires the United

States to begin either administrative forfeiture or judicial forfeiture within 120 days of the

seizure of the firearms. United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms, Explosives, Destructive

Devices and Ammunition, 376 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2004) cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1019

(2005).

4. The Defendant property was seized on March 16, 2007. The 120 day period

to initiate forfeiture proceedings ended on July 14, 2007. By June 20, 2007, ATF had initiated

administrative forfeiture proceedings and potential or putative Claimants, Pedro Ivan

Alvillar-Torres, and his alleged wife, Sandra Elizabeth Contreras, filed their claim to the

Defendant property held by ATF. Forfeiture proceedings were timely initiated pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 924(d).

5. Upon the timely filing of potential or putative Claimants’ claim on June 20,

2007, the United States had 90 days within which to either file a criminal indictment

containing a forfeiture allegation against the Defendant property, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

983(a)(3)(C), or file a civil forfeiture complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). The

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 -

United States satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(C) on April 10, 2007, by

obtaining an indictment in United States v. Pedro Ivan Alvillar-Torres

(CR07-402-PHX-SMM), including a forfeiture allegation against the Defendant property.

6. On September 14, 2007, in the matter of In Re: Non-Judicial Civil Forfeiture

Proceeding Involving Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Seizures of: Ten

(10) Firearms, Eleven (11) Rounds of Ammunition, and $32,760.00 in United States

Currency, Case Number MC-07-0084-PHX-EHC, the parties moved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 983(a)(3)(A), to extend the time in which the government was required to file its forfeiture

complaint and/or criminal indictment. (MC-07-0084-PHX-EHC; docket #1). On October 9,

2007, the assigned District Judge ordered the time to file the judicial forfeiture complaint

extended to November 16, 2007. On November 16, 2007, the United States satisfied the

requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) when it timely filed its Verified Complaint for

Forfeiture In Rem. (docket # 1).

7. The publication identified in paragraph 31 herein complied with General

Order # 98-15, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and Rule G(4)(a) of

the Supplemental Rules.

8. The Government has complied with its statutory notice obligations by

executing process against Defendants, sending direct notice by certified mail to all persons

known to have a potential interest in the subject Defendant property or their counsel, and by

properly publishing notice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); Supp. Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(B) (permitting

service on claimant’s criminal attorney where criminal action is related to forfeiture). 

9. This Court has in rem and personal jurisdiction over Defendant property and

potential or putative Claimants, respectively, to properly conduct a default judgment hearing,

pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) and Rule 12(a)(1), FED.R.CIV.P., and to enter default judgment.

Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) (A federal court does not have

personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been properly served under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4).

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 9 of 10
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

- 10 -

10. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55, after they have been lawfully served with

notice and process, the failure of potential or putative Claimants to file a timely claim, answer

or otherwise plead pursuant to Rule 12, FED.R.CIV.P. justifies entry of default judgment in

this case.

11. After considering all the factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470

(9th Cir. 1986) whether it should grant Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment, the

Court concludes that such factors weigh strongly in favor of the Government’s request to enter

default judgment.

12. The Court deems all factual allegations in the Complaint as true except for

those relating to damages. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th

Cir. 1987).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, docket # 15,

is GRANTED as to the Defendant firearms, ammunition and currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§§ 924(d), 924(n) and 981. By separate document, default judgment will be entered for and

on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America against the above-captioned Defendant

firearms, ammunition and $32,760.00 in United States currency, which are hereby

FORFEITED to the United States of America. Accordingly, all right, title and interest in

said property is hereby vested in the United States of America. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service or other

appropriate federal agency shall dispose of the forfeited Defendant property according to law.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02226-LOA Document 28 Filed 05/16/08 Page 10 of 10