Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01538/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01538-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR, VIN: )

5LMFU28RX3LJ19165, LICENSE )

NUMBER: 5BZT375, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1538-OWW-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT (DOC. 20)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(19) and 72-303.

I. Background

A verified complaint for forfeiture in rem was filed on

November 30, 2005, which alleged jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1345, 1355, and 21 U.S.C. § 881, and which further

alleged that the Defendant Lincoln Navigator (Lincoln) was a

conveyance used or intended to be used to transport, or to

facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or

concealment of, a controlled substance and thus was subject to

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 12
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

 Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) provides that property subject to forfeiture to the United States, and in which 1

no property right shall exist, includes all conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are

intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or

concealment of controlled substances, materials and equipment used in manufacturing, processing, or delivering

controlled substances, or chemicals and equipment handled in violation of the chapter.

2

forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4).1

It is alleged in the complaint that the Lincoln was seized

on June 2, 2005, in this district, and was a conveyance used or

intended to be used to transport or facilitate the

transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of a

controlled substance. (Cmplt. p. 2.) It is alleged that

undercover officers purchased cocaine from Adan Payan Lugo (Lugo)

in March and June 2005 in connection with an investigation of a

cocaine distribution ring at L&R Automotive Shop that involved

Lugo, Augustin Rodriguez (Rodriguez), Luciano Serrano Rocha

(Rocha), and Alfonso Leal. Rodriguez was observed driving the

vehicle. Rodriguez was arrested in June 2005; cocaine was found

on his person, and 126 grams of cocaine and keys to the Defendant

Lincoln were found inside a desk drawer located inside the shop

office. Rodriguez admitted ownership of the vehicle and consented

to a search of his residence on Knoll Street in Fresno;

additional cocaine, a digital scale used for weighing narcotics,

and an assault rifle were found in the residence. Although Rocha

was the registered owner of the Lincoln, his wife told officers

that Rocha had financed the vehicle for their son, Rodriguez, who

had made all the payments on the auto loan until she and Rocha

paid the loan off from refinancing their residence; Rodriguez was

supposed to have changed the registration to reflect his true

ownership. Rodriguez eventually admitted to ownership of the

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 12
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

Lincoln. (Cmplt. pp. 2-3.)

After seizure of the Lincoln, on June 3, 2005, a narcotics

canine employed by the Madera Police Department alerted to the

back center console area, where in a hidden compartment beneath

cup holders were discovered five packets of cocaine totaling

fifty-four grams of cocaine. (Cmplt. p. 4.)

Augustin Rodriguez was charged with violations of state

criminal statutes prohibiting possession of cocaine for sale,

conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and other drug-related charges.

(Cmplt. p. 4.)

II. Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff filed this motion for default judgment on October

4, 2006; pursuant to an amended notice, the hearing was set for

December 1, 2006. The clerk had previously entered default as to

Augustin Rodriguez, Maria Rocha, and Luciano Serrano Rocha on

July 24, 2006, after they had not responded to the complaint.

By separate order, the Court has vacated the hearing on the

motion and has deemed the motion submitted on the papers.

III. Default Judgment

A court has the discretion to enter a default judgment

against one who is not an infant, incompetent, or member of the

armed services where the claim is for an amount that is not

certain on the face of the claim and where 1) the defendant has

been served with the claim; 2) the defendant’s default has been

entered for failure to appear; 3) if the defendant has appeared

in the action, the defendant has been served with written notice

of the application for judgment at least three days before the

hearing on the application; and 4) the court has undertaken any

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 12
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

necessary and proper investigation or hearing in order to enter

judgment or carry it into effect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); Alan

Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th

Cir. 1988). Factors that may be considered by courts in

exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment and

as to setting aside a default include the nature and extent of

the delay, Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-925 (9 Cir. th

1986); the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986); the merits of

plaintiff's substantive claim, id.; the sufficiency of the

allegations in the complaint to support judgment, Alan Neuman

Productions, Inc., 862 F.2d at 1392; the amount in controversy,

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d at 1471-1472; the possibility of a

dispute concerning material facts, id.; whether the default was

due to excusable neglect, id.; and the strong policy underlying

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that favors decisions on the

merits, id.

With respect to default judgments in proceedings that are in

rem actions for forfeiture, both the general Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty

and Maritime Claims (Supp. R.) apply, but the latter rules

prevail if there is an inconsistency. Supp. R. A(1). Supp. R.

C(1)(a) permits an action in rem to be brought whenever a statute

of the United States provides for a proceeding analogous to a

maritime action in rem. Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(d) provides that

the provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary and

judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for violation

of the customs laws apply to forfeitures and seizures alleged to

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 4 of 12
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

have been incurred under that subchapter. 

Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) provides for the forfeiture of

conveyances such as Defendant Lincoln that are used or intended

for use to transport or facilitate the transportation, sale,

possession, or concealment of controlled substances.

Title 21 U.S.C. § 881(b) provides that any such property may

be seized by the Attorney General in the manner set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 981(b).

IV. Analysis

A. Notice

Civil forfeiture actions involving personal property are

subject to the notice requirements of the Supplemental Rules for

Certain Maritime and Admiralty Cases (Supp. R.), which in turn

require the government to give notice of forfeiture proceedings

by publication. Supp. Rule C(4). Supp. Rule C(4) provides:

No notice other than execution of process is required

when the property that is the subject of the action

has been released under Rule E(5). If the property is not

released within 10 days after execution, the plaintiff

must promptly–or within the time that the court allows–

give public notice of the action and arrest in a newspaper

designated by court order and having general circulation

in the district, but publication may be terminated if the

property is released before publication is completed. The

notice must specify the time under Rule C(6) to file

a statement of interest in or right against the seized

property and to answer. This rule does not affect the

notice requirements in an action to foreclose a preferred

ship mortgage under 46 U.S.C. §§ 31301 et seq., as amended.

 Further, Local Rule A-530 governs the publication of notice

of action and arrest, requiring the notice mandated by Supp. R.

C(4) to be published once in accordance with Local Rule 83-171;

further, Local Rule A-580 also provides that every notice

required to be published in a newspaper by any statute of the

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 5 of 12
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

United States or any rule applying to admiralty and maritime

proceedings must be published in accordance with Local Rule 83-

171. Local Rule 83-171 provides that the Court shall in each

instance designate by order the appropriate newspaper; counsel

shall file a motion proposing the place and manner of

publication, including the language to be used, frequency of

publication, and other matters. The Court in its order of January

19, 2006, directed publication once; that publication was

effected on February 3, 2006, and proof thereof was filed on

February 17, 2006.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which confers

a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, requires that

with respect to known owners of the property whose whereabouts

are known, the government must employ such notice as is

reasonably calculated under all of the circumstances to apprise

the person of the pendency of the forfeiture. United States v.

Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9 Cir. 1998); Dusenbery v. th

United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002) (holding that sending

certified mail to the custodial institution where the party was

being held as well as to the residence where the arrest occurred,

and the address in the town where his mother lived, satisfied due

process even though it did not result in actual notice to the

person).

Further, Local Rule A-540(a) requires that a party seeking a

default judgment in an action in rem shall show to the

satisfaction of the Court that due notice of the action and

arrest of the property has been given by publication pursuant to

Local Rule A-530, and by personal service on the person having

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 6 of 12
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

custody of the property or on the person having custody prior to

its possession by a law enforcement agency or officer, and by

personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested,

to every other person who has not appeared in the action and is

known to have an interest in the property; provided, that failure

to give actual notice to such other person may be excused upon a

satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to give such notice

without success.

Plaintiff personally served Augustin Rodriguez with the

summons, complaint, and related documents on December 28, 2005;

proof of service was filed on January 17, 2006.

Luciano Serrano Rocha and Maria Rocha were served on

December 28, 2005, with the summons, complaint, and related

documents, with service effected by serving the daughter, Antonia

Rocha, a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the

usual place of abode of Luciano Serrano Rocha and Maria Rocha.

(Decl. of Elisa M. Maguire [Doc. 15-2], Decl. of Elisa Maguire

[Doc. 14-2].) This appears to be adequate service under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Service by certified mail followed in March

2006.

 Thus, adequate notice was given to persons known to have

possessed the Lincoln or to have an interest in it. 

B. Default

A person who might claim an interest in or right against

property that is the subject of a forfeiture action such as that

before the Court must file a verified claim identifying the

interest or right within thirty days after the earlier of 1) the

date of service of the government’s complaint, or 2) the

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 7 of 12
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

completion of publication. Supp. R. C(6). A person who files a

statement of interest or right must serve and file an answer

within twenty days after filing the statement. Id. 

Here, the declarations and the docket reveal that no claims,

statements, or answers have been filed despite publication and

service. Thus, there has been a default, as reflected by the

Clerk’s entry of default against Augustin Rodriguez, Maria Rocha,

and Luciano Serrano Rocha. A failure to file a timely claim under

Supp. R. C(6) precludes one from establishing statutory standing

as a party to the forfeiture action. See United States v. Real

Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9 Cir. 1998). th

Further, the Court notes that it appears from the

declarations that none of the individuals named in connection

with the defendant property appears to be a minor, incompetent,

or a person in the military service.

C. Sufficiency of the Complaint

The relevant portions of Supp. R. Adm. C(2) indicates that,

in an action in rem, the complaint must:

(a) be verified; 

(b) describe with reasonable particularity the property that

is the subject of the action;

. . . 

(d) in a forfeiture proceeding for violation of a federal

statute, state: (i) the place of seizure and whether it was

on land or on navigable waters; (ii) whether the property is

within the district, and if the property is not within the

district the statutory basis for the court’s exercise of

jurisdiction over the property; and (iii) all allegations

required by the statute under which the action is brought.

Here, the complaint was verified, the property was

described, the place and date of seizure were stated, and the

basis for the Court’s jurisdiction was stated. (Cmplt. at 1-2.)

As to the allegations required by the statute under which

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 8 of 12
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

the action is brought, 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) provides that

property subject to forfeiture to the United States, and in which

no property right shall exist, includes all conveyances,

including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are

intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate

the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of

controlled substances, materials and equipment used in 

manufacturing, processing, or delivering controlled substances,

or chemicals and equipment handled in violation of the chapter.

The complaint adequately alleged that the Lincoln was owned and

used by Rodriguez; Rodriguez was present during two undercover

purchases of cocaine at the automotive shop in March; Rodriguez

and his vehicle were regularly at the shop; Rodriguez initially

denied his identity and ownership of the vehicle but ultimately

admitted that he was Rodriguez and was the owner; forty-nine

grams of cocaine were found in Rodriguez’s residence along with

an assault rifle and digital scale; and fifty-four grams of

cocaine were found in a secret compartment in the Lincoln. 

These allegations establish that the vehicle was used in the 

transportation or concealment of controlled substances and thus

was subject to forfeiture.

Thus, the Court concludes that the allegations of the

complaint were legally sufficient. 

D. Judgment

Local Rule A-540(d) provides that upon a showing that no one

has appeared to claim the property and give security, and that

due notice of the action and arrest of the property has been

given, a party may move for judgment at any time after the time

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 9 of 12
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

for answer has expired; if no one has appeared, the party may

have an ex parte hearing before the Court and judgment without

further notice.

Here, no one has claimed an interest in the property or

otherwise responded to the complaint despite adequate notice. It

does not appear that there is any risk of mistake or excusable

neglect on the part of anyone with a potential interest in the

property or of a dispute as to a material fact essential to the

government’s case. No just cause for delay appears. It is

apparent from the declarations submitted to the Court that none

of the potential claimants is an infant, incompetent, or member

of the armed services. There does not appear to be any reason why

the general policy in favor of a decision on the merits would

warrant refusing to enter the requested default judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown its

entitlement to a default judgment of forfeiture.

With respect to the form of the judgment, Plaintiff has

established that it is entitled to a judgment against the

property, Waterloo Distilling Corp. v. U.S., 282 U.S. 577, 581

(1931), affecting the interests of all persons in the property,

Hanson v. Denkla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n.12 (1958).

 RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment BE GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff IS ENTITLED to, and the Clerk SHOULD ENTER, a

judgment that 

a) The interest/s of Augustin Rodriguez, Luciano

Serrano Rocha, and Maria Rocha in the Defendant property are

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 10 of 12
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

11

condemned and forfeited to the United States of America; and

b) The right, title, and interest of potential

claimants Augustin Rodriguez, Luciano Serrano Rocha, and Maria

Rocha in the Defendant property are forfeited to the United

States of America pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4), and are

vested in the United States; and

c) All persons claiming any right, title, or interest

in or to the Defendant property have defaulted and no longer have

any right, title, or interest in the Defendant property

whatsoever; and

3. The Clerk ENTER final judgment of forfeiture for

Plaintiff United States. 

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 11 of 12
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

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01538-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 11/27/06 Page 12 of 12