Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00014/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:0881 Forfeiture Property - Drugs

---

1

17-CV-0014 JLS (AGS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$9,900.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-0014 JLS (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION TO APPOINT 

THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

AS CUSTODIAN AND TO DEPOSIT 

DEFENDANT CURRENCY IN 

SEIZED ASSETS DEPOSIT 

ACCOUNT AND TO SUBSTITUTE 

THE RES

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America’s Ex Parte Motion 

to Appoint the United States Marshal as Custodian and to Deposit Defendant Currency in 

Seized Assets Deposit Account and to Substitute the Res. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff 

specifically requests an exception to General Order 273, which relieves the United States 

Marshal from his duties of seizing and storing property in an effort to “conserve his limited 

manpower and budgetary resources.” (Gen. Order 273; see also Mot. 1, ECF No. 2.)

Plaintiff requests that Defendant currency be placed in an account established and 

administered by the U.S. Marshals Service—the Seized Assets Deposit Account. (Mot. ¶ 4, 

ECF No. 2.) The current location of seized Defendant currency is unclear to the Court. 

Case 3:17-cv-00014-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 03/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-CV-0014 JLS (AGS)

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

Further, Plaintiff does not explain why the continued custody of the U.S. Marshals Service 

is “necessary” or why, given “the nature of the defendant currency,” continued custody is 

“in the best interest of the plaintiff in this case.” (Id. ¶ 3.) But, even given the conclusory 

nature of Plaintiff’s assertions, the Court finds that the U.S. Marshals Service’s continued 

custody of Defendant currency is appropriate in this case because the United States 

Marshals Service “has consented to assume responsibility for the protection, maintenance, 

and safety of the defendant currency.” (Id. ¶ 2); see also United States v. $277,000 U.S. 

Currency, 69 F.3d 1491, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995) (“District courts certainly have ample power 

to make orders for the maintenance of assets, as a condition of leaving them in the control 

of the government.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00014-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 03/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2