Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01050-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

 Both claimants alternatively request appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal 1

Justice Act, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and therefore 18 U.S.C. § 983(a). See also, Fed. R. Crim.

P. 44. This option is inapplicable because it is limited to federal criminal defendants. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1050 JAM GGH PS

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 

3115 CLAREMONT DRIVE, OROVILLE, ORDER

CALIFORNIA, BUTTE COUNTY,

APN: 079-010-012-0, INCLUDING

ALL APPURTENANCES AND 

IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, 

Defendant.

 /

Claimants Shirley Lacey and Barbara Howell (daughter and mother, respectively)

have filed separate Verified Claims in defendant property in this civil forfeiture action, and each

requests appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(2)(A), which provides: 1

If a person with standing to contest the forfeiture of property in a judicial civil

forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute is financially unable to obtain

representation by counsel, and the property subject to forfeiture is real property

that is being used by the person as a primary residence, the court, at the request of

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 12 Filed 07/11/08 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

2

the person, shall insure that the person is represented by an attorney for the Legal

Services Corporation with respect to the claim.

Accordingly, the following elements are required to qualify for appointment of

counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(2)(A): standing, primary residence and financial

limitation. 

Both Lacey and Howell declare under penalty of perjury that they reside at the

subject property. 

Although Lacey states that she is a “co-owner” of defendant property, she alone

possesses legal title. See Verified Complaint at ¶ 3 (“[t]he recorded owner of the defendant real

property is Shirley E. Lacey, a single woman”). Lacey therefore meets the standing requirement

of 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(2)(A). 

Howell’s interest in the property remains unclear. 

The Ninth Circuit requires “proper standing to contest a forfeiture both as a

statutory matter and as an Article III and prudential requirement.” United States v. One 1985

Cadillac Seville, 866 F .2d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir.1989); but see, U.S. v. $57,790 in U.S. Currency,

184 Fed.Appx. 604, 605 (9th Cir. 2006) (“standing” in forfeiture actions not synonymous with

Article III standing). “The claimant has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that he has an interest in the property.” U.S. v. Real Property Located at Section 18, 

976 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1992), citing U.S. v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th

Cir. 1990). “This interest need not be an ownership interest; it can be any type of interest,

including a possessory interest. See $122,043.00 [United States v. $122,043.00 in United States

Currency, 792 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.1986)] 792 F.2d at 1473; United States v. 1982 Sanger

24' Spectra Boat, 738 F.2d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir.1984) (‘It is not necessary therefore that a

claimant under the forfeiture statute allege ownership. A lesser property interest such as

possession creates standing.’) (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct.

1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984)).” United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 12 Filed 07/11/08 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

 The Notice of Complaint filed May 15, 2008 informs potential claimants that answers 2

to the complaint are to be filed within twenty days of filing a claim. See Notice of Complaint

(Doc. # 1-3), at 2:11-14. Both Lacey and Howell filed their claims on June 24, 2008; twenty

days thereafter is Monday, July 14, 2008. 

3

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

Although Howell claims she is a “co-owner” and has “equitable interests” in

defendant property, the evidence submitted does not support her claims. The evidence does not

include any agreement or other documentation demonstrating that Howell has an equitable

interest in defendant property. Rather, the evidence consists of documents demonstrating

Howell’s and Lacey’s sources of income (primarily Social Security) and a series of mostly

illegible receipts demonstrating “house payments,” presumably made on the mortgage for

defendant property. To the extent the receipts are legible, they indicate payments made variously

by “Shirley Lacey,” “Shirley and Barb Lacey” (some receipts have crossed out “Barb Lacey” and

replaced it with “Barbara Howell”), “Chris,” “Chris Chad,” ‘Vince,” “BJ,” “Jason,” “Carol,”

“John,” “Carla,” and “RB.” None of this evidence demonstrates that Howell has any equitable

title or other cognizable interest in defendant property.

Since Howell has not met her burden of demonstrating she has standing to contest

the forfeiture of defendant property, she will be directed to serve and file a further declaration

and additional evidence demonstrating her interest therein. The filing deadline for claimant’s

answers will be deferred pending the court’s determination of Howell’s standing to remain in

2

this action and further order of the court. The court will also defer referral of either claimant to

Legal Services Corporation for assessment of their financial eligibility for appointment of

counsel.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 12 Filed 07/11/08 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Howell shall file and serve, within twenty days of service of this order, a

declaration and additional evidence demonstrating her interest in defendant property and standing

to challenge its forfeiture; and

2. Claimants’ answers to the complaint shall not be due until further order of this

court.

So ordered.

DATED: July 11, 2008

/s/Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Real Prop.Claremont.Cnsl

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 12 Filed 07/11/08 Page 4 of 4