Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02638/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02638-0/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

1 The factual basis is taken from the verified complaint. 

10cv2638

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$3,063.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv2638 L(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS [doc. #5]

On January 5, 2011, Merrill Dennis Harvey, Jr., appearing pro se, filed a verified claim in

this forfeiture action and a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff United States opposes the motion. Harvey did not file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition.

The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

1. BACKGROUND1

The government filed this action for forfeiture in rem on December 21, 2010. The

currency at issue was seized on or about July 14, 2010, when claimant was stopped at the

Interstate 8 Westbound Checkpoint located in Pine Valley, California. At the secondary

inspection area, claimant consented to a canine sniff of the vehicle. The canine alerted on the

center console of the vehicle. Harvey then gave consent to the agents to search the vehicle.

Case 3:10-cv-02638-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 06/02/11 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

2 10cv2638

A white plastic bag containing approximately two grams of methamphetamine and 94

ziplock baggies were found in the center console; a digital scale was found in the lower center

console; and a leather jacket in the trunk of the vehicle contained a plastic container with a small

quantity of marijuana. Harvey, who had $3,063.00 in his possession along with two cell phones,

was taken into custody by a San Diego County Sheriff’s Department detective. The detective

concluded that the methamphetamine was possessed for the purpose of sales and the currency

represented the proceeds from the sales of controlled substances.

The government contends that the currency is traceable to violations of federal law

arising out of violation of 21 U.S.C. § 881. All moneys “furnished or intended to be furnished

by any person in exchange for a controlled substance . . . all proceeds traceable to such an

exchange, and all moneys . . . used or intended to be used to facilitate” a violation of the

controlled substances laws are subject to forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 

2. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for

"failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A

complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or states

insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749

F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir.1984). The factual allegations of a complaint must be "enough to raise a

right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955,

1965 (2007). A plaintiff must plead more than conclusory allegations to show "plausible

liability" and avoid dismissal. Id. at 1966 n. 5. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court

accepts well-pleaded facts as true and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving

party. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

Additionally, the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset

Forfeiture Actions govern in rem forfeiture actions. The pleading requirements are set out in

Rule G(2): the complaint must: “(a) be verified; (b) state the grounds for subject matter

jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue; (c) describe the property

with reasonable particularity; (d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure

Case 3:10-cv-02638-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 06/02/11 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 10cv2638

occurred and – if different – its location when the action is filed; (e) identify the statute under

which the forfeiture action is brought; and (f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support a

reasonable belief that the government will meet its burden of proof at trial.” FED.R.CIV.P. SUPP.

R. G(2). At the pleading stage, the complaint therefore must contain sufficient detailed facts to

support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to show that the currency is

traceable to a violation of the controlled substances laws. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), 

Both the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), at 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D), and

the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(8) provide that a

complaint may not be dismissed due to a lack of evidence. CAFRA provides that: “No complaint

may be dismissed on the ground that the Government did not have adequate evidence at the time

the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the property.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D).

Rule G(8)(b)(ii) further provides that “the complaint may not be dismissed on the ground that the

government did not have adequate evidence at the time the complaint was filed to establish the

forfeitability of the property.” 

3. Discussion

Claimant contend that there is “no conclusive proof” that he was involved in a drug

trafficking crime because “[a]ll charges were dismissed against claimant, Harvey, in the state

court.” (MTD at 2.) As a result, claimant contends that the government lacks probable cause and

the complaint should be dismissed. 

In order to institute forfeiture proceedings, the Government, at trial or in a motion for

summary judgment, must establish probable cause connecting the seized property with illegal

drug transactions. See 19 U.S.C. § 1615 (2001). In United States v. $493,850.00 in U.S.

Currency, 518 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.2008), the Ninth Circuit held that the probable cause

requirement for instituting a forfeiture action survives the requirements created under the Civil

Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”). Id. at 1166; United States v. $186,416.00, 590

F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir.2010). 

But in filing its verified complaint, the government does not have to set forth all of its

evidence, or even enough evidence to show that it will prevail. Rather, it is sufficient to show

Case 3:10-cv-02638-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 06/02/11 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 10cv2638

that, following discovery, it is reasonable to believe the government will be able to meet its

burden of proof. United States v. Real Property Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d

1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Having reviewed the verified complaint, the Court finds that the government has

sufficiently alleged facts supporting a nexus between the defendant currency and drug trafficking

activities. For example, the verified complaint alleges that a canine alerted to the exterior of the

vehicle and to the interior of the vehicle where methamphetamine, packaging materials and a

digital scale were found; claimant was in possession of $3,063.00 in United States currency in

close proximity to the methamphetamine, packaging materials and a digital scale; claimant was

in possession of two cell phones with numerous incoming calls asking him his location and if he

had any “60's” for sale – an indication of communications between drug sellers and customers;

and the opinion of a San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Detective based on his training and

experience. These factual allegations, which are taken as true, support a reasonable belief that

the government will be able to prevail on the merits. 

4. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, claimant Merrill Dennis Harvey, Jr.’s motion to dismiss is

DENIED. Claimant shall file an answer within 21 days of the filing of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:10-cv-02638-L-JMA Document 14 Filed 06/02/11 Page 4 of 4