Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05459/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05459-18/pdf.json

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

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

APPROXIMATELY $52,000 IN UNITED 

STATES CURRENCY, and 

APPROXIMATELY $39,000 IN UNITED 

STATES CURRENCY, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 07-05459 SBA 

ORDER VACATING REASSIGNMENT 

ORDER 

 

 The parties are presently before this Court pursuant to a September 23, 2009, order that 

removed this case from presiding U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James' consideration and 

reassigned it to this Court for all further proceedings. However, having reviewed the file in this 

action, the Court finds that this case was properly before the magistrate court and therefore 

VACATES the Order Reassigning Case (Docket No. 77). 

On May 22, 2007, DEA agents located and seized defendant $39,000.00 in United States 

currency ("defendant currency") from Ustano McVey's ("Claimant") luggage at the San Francisco 

International Airport. The United States ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this forfeiture action on 

October 25, 2007, contending that defendant currency is subject to forfeiture as money furnished or 

intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, traceable to such an exchange, or 

Case 3:07-cv-05459-MEJ Document 89 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the United States Code.1 (Complaint for 

Forfeiture ("Compl.") ¶ 1; Docket No.1) 

On September 8, 2009, Magistrate Judge James, upon a review of the record and finding 

that the parties had not previously filed written consent to magistrate jurisdiction, ordered the 

parties to file an official consent or declination form with the Court by September 17, 2009. 

(Docket No. 70.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a Consent to Proceed Before a United States 

Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 71.) On September 17, 2009, Plaintiff and Claimant signed a joint 

case management statement stipulating that "[t]he parties consent to magistrate jurisdiction." 

(Docket No. 72 at 3:17-18.) The following day, Magistrate Judge James denied Claimant's pending 

motion for summary judgment without prejudice. (Docket No. 74.) On September 22, 2009, 

Claimant apparently changed his mind with respect to magistrate jurisdiction, and filed a 

Declination to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge and the action was reassigned to 

this Court. (Docket No. 75.) 

Consequently, the Court construes Claimant's filing of the declination form, five days after 

having explicitly consented to magistrate jurisdiction in the joint case management statement, and 

four days after the magistrate's order, as an opportunistic attempt to acquire a new judge. A district 

court has the inherent power to dismiss a case due to judge-shopping as part of its power to 

sanction conduct that abuses the judicial process. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 

399 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Judge-shopping clearly constitutes conduct which abuses the judicial 

process.") (internal quotations omitted). Being a harsh penalty, however, dismissal should only be 

used as a sanction in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399, citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In light of this, a court may elect to transfer the case back to 

the original judge. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 402. 

/// 

/// 

 1 Defendant $52,000 in United States Currency was dismissed from this action pursuant to a 

settlement agreement between Plaintiff and the only claimant to defendant $52,000. (Docket No. 

87.) 

Case 3:07-cv-05459-MEJ Document 89 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 23, 2009, Order Reassigning Case is 

VACATED and this action is REASSIGNED to proceed before U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena 

James for all further proceedings. 

Dated: 1/14/10 ____________________________ 

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-05459-MEJ Document 89 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 3