Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$79,010.00 in United States currency, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0244-PHX-DGC

ORDER

In this currency forfeiture action, the United States moves to strike pro se Claimant

Quezon Gray’s claim and answer for lack of standing (Doc. 25), and Claimant moves to

dismiss the government’s motion (Doc. 27). The government moves to strike the motion to

dismiss as an untimely response. Doc. 29. Claimant also moves to address the Court in

“layman’s terms” (Doc. 34) and to suppress his earlier disclaimer in the seized currency on

grounds that he was under duress when he signed the disclaimer (Doc. 34). On March 11,

2011 the government moved to stay the motion to suppress until resolution of the motion to

strike. Doc. 35.

Claimant was stopped by the Arizona Department of Public Safety on September 9,

2009, while driving a truck and trailer, and $79,010 was found in a duffel bag inside a hidden

compartment within the trailer. Doc. 25, at 1, 4; Doc. 27. Claimant and the vehicles were

taken to the Arizona Department of Transportation Happy Valley maintenance yard, where

Claimant was given a disclaimer of ownership form. Doc. 25 at 4. Claimant signed the

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 4
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

 The Court denied the government’s earlier motion to strike Claimant’s answer

(Doc. 8). Doc. 14.

2

 Claimant’s verified claim also asserts that the disclaimer was signed under duress.

Doc. 10-1 at 3:23-28. The Court passes no judgment on this assertion.

- 2 -

form. Id. at 4-5. On or about November 3, 2009, Claimant filed an administrative claim

asserting ownership of the currency and asserting that the money was earned during five

years of employment and self-employment. Doc. 10-1 at 3-4. On February 2, 2010, the

United States filed the present action (Doc. 1), and Claimant filed an answer (Doc. 7) and a

claim (Doc. 10) asserting an ownership interest in the currency.

“To have standing to challenge a forfeiture, a claimant must allege that he has an

ownership or other interest in the forfeited property.” United States v. $191,910.00, 16 F.3d

1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as

stated in United States v. $80,180.00, 303 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002). “[A] simple

claim of ownership will be sufficient to create standing.” Id. at 1058 (emphasis in original).

Some district courts have limited $191,910.00 to the pleading stage, and have required more

than mere allegations at the summary judgment stage. E.g., United States v. $133,420.00,

2010 WL 2594304, *4-*6 (D. Ariz. 2010). 

Although the government asserts that “Rule G(8)(c) allows this motion to proceed by

summary judgment” and references an “attached Statement of Facts” (Doc. 25 at 2), the

motion is styled “Motion to Strike Claim and Answer,” and no separate statement of facts

has been filed as required by LRCiv 56.1. The Court will therefore treat the government’s

motion as a renewed motion to dismiss.1

Claimant signed a disclaimer. Doc. 25 at 4-5. The government argues that by signing

the disclaimer, Claimant “[gave] up all rights to the currency.” Id. at 7. The government has

not attached the disclaimer form to the motion or the complaint, nor does the government cite

case law for the proposition that such a disclaimer would alienate legal title or be anything

more than merely a rebuttable admission.2

 Claimant’s verified answer and claim each assert

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

that Claimant is the owner of the currency. Doc. 10-1 at 3:3-5; Doc. 7 at 8:8-10. The

verified claim also asserts that Claimant obtained the currency over “five years of

employment and self-employment.” Doc. 10-1 at 3:6-9.

In light of the fact that Claimant has asserted an ownership interest in the currency,

the Court will deny the government’s motion to strike. See $191,910.00, 16 F.3d at 1057

(“These cases simply state that a claimant will not have standing without at some time

asserting an interest in the property and describing whether the interest is a possessory

interest, an ownership interest, or something else.”). The Court will also deny as moot

Claimant’s motion to dismiss and the government’s motion to strike the motion to dismiss.

Claimant seeks permission to address the Court in lay terms because it is impossible

for him to use “legal terms.” Doc. 32. The Court is cognizant of Claimant’s pro se status,

and Claimant is not required to use legal words to invoke the power of the law. See Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (noting that pro se complaints are held to “less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and that, therefore, inartful pro

se pleadings should still be considered by the court); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,

784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that pro se plaintiffs are expected to abide by

the rules of the court in which they litigate). The Court will apply this law without motion

by Claimant. Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot. Claimant is required to follow the

Court’s rules of civil procedure, however, and to phrase his motions in such a way as to give

the Court fair notice of his arguments. 

The motion to strike having been decided, the government’s motion to stay the motion

to suppress the disclaimer is denied as moot. The government shall file a response within 14

days of the issuance of this order.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The government’s motion to strike the answer and claim (Doc. 25) is denied.

2. Claimant’s motion to dismiss the motion to strike (Doc. 27) is denied as moot.

3. The government’s motion to strike the motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is denied

as moot.

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 4
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 -

4. Claimant’s motion to address the Court in lay terms (Doc. 32) is denied as

moot.

5. The government’s motion to stay (Doc. 35) is denied as moot.

6. The government shall file a response to Claimant’s motion to suppress within

14 days of this order.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 4