Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00427/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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,

v. 

$10,951.00 in United States Currency,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-00427-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

On October 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Status Conference. The Court 

denies the motion without prejudice.

The Government filed this action on August 26, 2024, as a civil in rem forfeiture 

complaint against the defendant property, $10,951.00. It mailed Notice of Forfeiture Action 

to Adril Delgado Gutierrez, who resides in Mexico, and Gabriela Viviana Soltero, who 

resides in southern Arizona. The subject of the forfeiture, $10,951.00, was transported by 

Soltero into the country through the Mariposa Port of Entry, Nogales, Arizona. At the time 

of the seizure, Soltero stated that the money belonged to someone else. According to 

Plaintiff, Soltero has provided a signed statement that the money belongs to Delgado. 

(Motion, letter (Doc. 7-1)).

According to the Plaintiff, the acknowledgement of service of the Notice was not 

signed and returned by Soltero, but on September 13, 2024, she went to the U.S. Attorney’s 

office, Tucson, Arizona, and requested assistance in filing a claim for the $10,951.00. She 

returned on October 3, 2024, and submitted two hand-written notes, one in English and one 

Case 4:24-cv-00427-CKJ Document 9 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 4
- 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

in Spanish. The Court finds that Soltero was served with the Notice of Forfeiture, which 

also included a copy of the Complaint for forfeiture.

The Notice provides: “In order to avoid forfeiture, you must file a verified claim 

within 35 days of the date of this notice. An answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be 

filed, and served, no later than twenty-one (21) days after filing the claim. If you fail to do 

so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You must file your claim against the property, and answer, with the Clerk of this Court and 

provide a copy to the government attorney.”

The Notice also provides that to make a claim, she 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; (D) be served on the government 

attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D), in this case, Assistant United 

States Attorney Matthew G. Eltringham at 405 West Congress Street, Suite 4800, Tucson, 

Arizona 85701-5040.”

The letter given to the United States Attorney is not signed by the claimant under 

penalty of perjury. It does, however, identify the specific property claimed, $10,951.00. It 

states that she and Adril Delgado Gutierrez, who is her brother-in-law, claim the money. 

She was transporting the money to buy cars for Delgado’s car sales “with part of it.” 

(Motion, letter (Doc. 6.1)). This suggests there may have been a bailment of the money by 

Delgado to Soltero. “A claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify 

the bailor, and if filed on the bailor’s behalf must state the authority to do so.” Id.

To be clear, the letter given to the United States Attorney does not establish a 

bailment. Soltero, if she appears pro se (without counsel), may not represent another person 

in this action. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (citing general 

rule that “a non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself’”). 

Even “‘a nonattorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf 

of his or her child.’” Id. at 876 (quoting Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll., 937 F.2d 876, 882–83 

Case 4:24-cv-00427-CKJ Document 9 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 4
- 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

(3d Cir. 1991)). In other words, if Soltero cannot establish a bailment, she cannot seek 

return of the money, or a part of the money, on behalf of her brother-in-law, Delgado.

Sotero may only claim her part of the $10,951.00. Only Delgado may claim property 

belonging to him.

The Motion for Status Conference reflects there may be some confusion as to 

whether Soltero has filed a claim for herself and/or for both Delgado and her by presenting 

the letter to the Government at its Tucson office. Section 983(a)(4)(A) of the statute 

provides: “In any case in which the Government files in the appropriate United States 

district court a complaint for forfeiture of property, any person claiming an interest in the 

seized property may file a claim asserting such person's interest in the property in the 

manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims....” 

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A). In other words, Soltero must state her claim by filing an answer 

in this action. The Court finds the letter submitted on October 3, 2024, triggered the start 

of the 20-day time period to file and serve an answer or a motion under Federal Rule Civil 

Procedure, Rule 12, in this case. The Court shall extend this time due to the confusion and 

because it appears that Soltero and/or Delgado may have a claim to the $10,951.00 or parts

of it. If either Soltero or Delgado want to proceed with claims in this forfeiture action, they 

are advised to review The Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants, Chapter 10, which 

may be found on the Court’s website: www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Failure to file an answer or responsive motion in this action may result in your claim 

to the $10,951.00 being denied and a default judgment of forfeiture being entered in this 

case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

In the event you proceed with a claim by filing an answer or motion in this action, 

you must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for 

the U.S. District Court of Arizona (local rules). They may be found on the Court’s website 

by typing “Local Rules” or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” in the search bar and 

navigating to Rules, General Orders & Forms.” You should take special notice of Local 

Rule 7.2 which provides specifics for civil motions, especially subsection (i) which 

Case 4:24-cv-00427-CKJ Document 9 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 4
- 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

provides that failure to file a timely response, or any other such non-compliance, "may be 

deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the 

motion summarily." This means, that any motion filed by the Plaintiff may be summarily 

granted against you if you fail to respond to the Complaint within the allotted time for 

responding (usually 14 days).

“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants” 

because this would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers. Pliler v. 

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). Therefore, the Court advises you to refer to its website, 

especially the Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants and the rules that are posted there.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Status Conference (Doc. 7) is DENIED 

without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for filing an answer or motion in this 

action is extended to November 18, 2024. Failure to file an answer or motion in this action 

may result in dismissal of any claims, default, and the Court’s entry of a judgment of 

forfeiture in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent to Gabriela Soltero and 

Adril Delgado Gutierrez at the addresses provided below.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2024.

Cc:

Gabriela Viviana Soltero

567 Camino Lito Galindo

Rio Rico, AZ 85648

Adril Delgado Gutierrez

Col Luis Donaldo Colosio 84066 Lito Galindo

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico

Case 4:24-cv-00427-CKJ Document 9 Filed 10/28/24 Page 4 of 4