Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00390-0/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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

KRISTIN S. DOOR, SBN 84307

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916)554-2723

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2:10-cv-00390 FCD EFB

 )

Plaintiff, ) JOINT STATUS REPORT AND

 ) STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER

v. ) PROCEEDINGS; ORDER 

 ) 

APPROXIMATELY $90,830.00 IN )

U.S. CURRENCY, )

 )

Defendant. )

________________________________)

Pursuant to this Court's Order Requiring Joint Status Report

the plaintiff United States of America and claimant Charles M.

Hilkey submit the following report. 

(a) Brief summary of the claims and legal theories under

which recovery is sought or liability denied:

Plaintiff contends that the defendant currency is the

proceeds of marijuana trafficking and is forfeitable to the

United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Claimant

denies these allegations.

The facts are complicated, but the legal theories in this

case are straightforward: Plaintiff United States of America

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 7
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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

contends the Charles M. Hilkey was engaged in the manufacture and

distribution of marijuana, and that this currency is the proceeds

of that criminal activity.

(b) Status of service upon all defendants and crossdefendants and claimants:

All potential claimants have been served, and the time for

filing claims by potential claimants who received direct notice

of the forfeiture has expired. 

(c) Possible joinder of additional parties:

Plaintiff does not anticipate that there will be any

additional parties, but it is possible that a person who sees the

notice of forfeiture on the government website will file a claim

and answer and will therefore become a party. Under Rule G

(5)(a)(ii)(B) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime

Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions a person who did not receive

direct notice of the forfeiture (e.g. by certified mail or

personal service), but who sees the notice of forfeiture on the

website, can file a claim as late as 60 days after the first day

of publication on the government website. The Order for

Publication has not yet been signed, but the plaintiff will

arrange for publication as soon as the order is signed. 

(d) Contemplated amendments to the pleadings:

The parties do not contemplate amending the pleadings. In

light of the requested stay (see below) plaintiff does not object 

if claimant Hilkey files his Answer after the stay is lifted.

(e) Statutory basis for jurisdiction and venue:

Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355(a). 

Venue is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(b) and 1395, and 21 U.S.C. §

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 7
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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

881(j). 

(f) Anticipated discovery and the scheduling of

discovery, including:

(1) what changes, if any, should be made in the

timing, form, or requirement for disclosure

under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to

when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were

made or will be made;

As of the December 1, 2006, amendments to Rule 26 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, civil forfeiture actions are

now exempt from the initial disclosure requirements applicable to

most other civil actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(ii).

In addition, the parties request that a stay of further

proceedings be entered at this time pending the outcome

of the related criminal case now pending against claimant Hilkey. 

Hilkey is a defendant in U.S. v. Charles M. Hilkey, Jr., Rachelle

Sari Garnitz, and Bram Gabriel Lewis, 2:09-cr-00412 FCD now

pending in this court. 

The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1) and

981(g)(2). As explained above in (a) above, the plaintiff

contends that claimant Hilkey was involved in the manufacture and

distribution of marijuana. If discovery proceeds at this time,

claimant Hilkey will be placed in the difficult position of

either invoking his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination and losing the ability to pursue his claims to the

defendant property, or waiving his Fifth Amendment right and

submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating himself. 

If he invokes his Fifth Amendment right, the plaintiff will be

deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the

claim he filed with this court. 

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 7
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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

In addition, claimant intends to depose, among others, the

agents involved in this investigation, including but not limited

to the agents with the Internal Revenue Service and the Drug

Enforcement Administration. Allowing depositions of the law

enforcement officers at this time would adversely affect the

ability of federal authorities to investigate the underlying

criminal conduct.

 The parties recognize that proceeding with this action at

this time has potential adverse affects on the prosecution of the

pending criminal case, and/or upon claimant’s ability to prove

his claim to the property and assert any defenses to forfeiture. 

For these reasons, the parties jointly request that this matter

be stayed until the related criminal case is over. At that time

the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is

necessary.

(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed;

when discovery should be completed; and whether

discovery should be conducted in phases;

As explained above the parties request a stay of further

proceedings. 

(3) what changes, if any, should be made in the

limitations on discovery imposed under the

Civil Rules and what other limitations, if

any, should be imposed;

The parties do not request any changes in the discovery

limitations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), 30, or 33. 

(4) the timing of the disclosure of expert

witnesses and information required by Rule

26(a)(2);

As explained above the parties request a stay of further

proceedings, including expert disclosure. 

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 7
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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

(5) Proposed dates for discovery cut-off:

Not applicable in light of requested stay of further

proceedings.

(g) Contemplated dispositive motions and proposed date by

which all non-discovery motions shall be heard:

Not applicable in light of the requested stay of further

proceedings. 

(h) Proposed date for final pretrial conference:

Not applicable in light of the requested stay.

(i) Proposed date for trial, estimate of days of trial, and

whether any party has demanded a jury:

Not applicable in light of the requested stay.

(j) Appropriateness of special procedures such as reference

to a special master or agreement to try the matter

before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c):

None.

(k) Proposed modification of standard pretrial procedures

because of the simplicity or complexity of the case:

None. 

(l) Whether the case is related to any other case pending

in this district, including the bankruptcy courts of

this district:

This case is related to U.S. v. Real Property in Nevada

County, APN: 61-070-08, et al., 2:09-cv-03542 FCD-GGH (“Hilkey

#1-Cherokee/Callahan); U.S. v. Real Property in Nevada County,

APN: 61-160-02, et al., 2:09-cv-03062 FCD-GGH (“Hilkey #2-

Sparky/Cherokee”); U.S. v. Real Property in Nevada County, APN:

61-160-05, 2:09-cv-03063 FCD-GGH, “Hilkey #3-Roth”); and U.S. v.

Real Property Located at 24271 Hoyt Crossing Road, in Nevada

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 7
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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

County, APN: 60-360-15, 2:09-cv-03085 FCD-GGH (“Hilkey #4-Lewis)

and to U.S. v. Charles Miller Hilkey, Jr. et al., 2:09-cr-412

FCD. A Notice of Related Cases has been filed in each civil case

and in the criminal case. 

(m) Prospects for settlement, including whether a

settlement conference should be scheduled and whether,

in the case of a jury trial, the parties will stipulate

to the trial judge acting as settlement judge:

Prospects for settlement are unknown at this time.

(n) Any other matter that may be conducive to the just and

expeditious disposition of the case.

None. 

Date: March 17, 2010 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney

By /s/ Kristin S. Door 

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

Dated: March 16, 2010 BLACKMON & ASSOCIATES

By Clyde M. Blackmon (as authorized

on 3/16/10)

CLYDE M. BLACKMON

Attorney for claimant

Charles M. Hilkey, Jr. 

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1) and 981(g)(2) until the

related criminal case is over. Within 30 days after all

proceedings in U.S. District Court in U.S. v. Hilkey et al., have

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 6 of 7
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 Joint Status Report and Stipulation

to Stay Further Proceedings; Order

concluded, the parties will advise the court whether a further

stay is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010 _____________________________

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00390-LKK-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/17/10 Page 7 of 7