Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00733/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00733-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Complaint for Forfeiture

---

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, et )

al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8647 )

NINTH STREET, SAN JOAQUIN, )

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, )

APN:033-091-24, including all )

appurtenances and improvements)

thereto, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00733-AWI-SMS

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 24)

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court. 

On May 5, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a

recommendation that Plaintiff’s application for default judgment

of forfeiture be denied. The findings and recommendation were

served on all parties on May 5, 2006, and contained notice that

any objections to the findings and recommendation were to be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the

order. 

On June 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed notices of summons

returned executed as of May 26, 2006, as to service of Jose Luis

Mandujano and Leticia Espino Mandujano, which reflect that an

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 08/18/06 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

attempt to serve Leticia Espino with numerous documents was made

on May 26, 2006, by the Marshal, and that the documents were left

in front of the front door at the residence; an attempt to serve

Jose Luis Mandujano with numerous documents was made on May 26,

2006, and documents were left in front of the front door at the

residence. There is no indication that the documents were

actually left with an adult person at either of the sites.

On June 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings

and recommendation and a declaration of Autumn Magee in support

of the objections. The declaration reveals that on May 5, 2006,

certified mailing of various documents was made to the Manning

Avenue address for Jose Luis Mandujano and at the Ninth Street

address for Leticia Espino Mandujano. No claim or answer had been

filed by June 5, 2006.

There was no indication of any additional publication or

other form of substituted service pursuant to California law.

Generally, a new theory cannot properly be raised in

objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary

of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other

grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th

Cir.1992). Factual assertions which could have been but were not

presented to the Magistrate Judge should be given no

consideration when the court is deciding whether to adopt

findings and recommendations. Sundaram v. County of Santa

Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v.

Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997).

"[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the

magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 08/18/06 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

present a different theory to the district court would frustrate

the purpose of the Magistrates Act." Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638.

While a district court judge may receive additional evidence

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) when determining whether to accept

or reject a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the

court exercises its discretion and declines to consider the new

evidence because Plaintiff has not provided any reason why the

declaration was not submitted during the long period during which

the motion for default judgment was pending before the Magistrate

Judge issued the findings and recommendations. U.S. v. Howell,

231 F.3d 615, 622-23 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 831

(2001) (district court judge has discretion to reject evidence

submitted after findings and recommendations have issued).

Indeed, the Magistrate Judge gave the Plaintiff two opportunities

to submit additional materials in support of the motion before

the findings and recommendation were filed. 

Further, even if the new materials were considered, the

Plaintiff does not brief or demonstrate how Plaintiff’s efforts

comply with state law requirements, discussed in the findings and

recommendations, or with 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(1). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo

review of the case. Plaintiff has filed objections to the

findings and recommendations; the undersigned has considered the

objections and has determined there is no need to modify the

findings and recommendations based on the points raised in the

objections.

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 08/18/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed May 5, 2005, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment IS DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00733-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 08/18/06 Page 4 of 4