Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02127/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02127-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Replevin &amp; Conversion

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CIV. S-01-2127 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18025

N. QUARTZ MOUNTAIN ROAD, AMADOR

COUNTY, FIDDLETOWN, CALIFORNIA,

APN: 015-320-019-000, INCLUDING

ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS

THERETO,

Defendant.

 /

WILLIAM LOCKYER and WILLIAM OLSON,

Claimants.

 /

William Lockyer’s and William Olson’s (“claimants”) 

motion to set side the final judgment of forfeiture in the abovecaptioned case is currently scheduled for hearing on the court’s

June 13, 2005 Law and Motion calendar. Having considered the

motion, the court determines that claimants may not solely

Case 2:01-cv-02127-LKK -GGH Document 63 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1 On May 6, 2004, the magistrate judge issued findings and

recommendations recommending the district court strike Lockyer’s

and Olson’s claims based on discovery delays and failure to abide

by the court’s orders. On July 28, 2005, Judge Levi adopted in

full the May 6, 2004 Findings and Recommendations. Thus, on

September 17, 2004, only the United States of America and

CitiMortgage (the Mortgagee) remained as parties, which later

stipulated to the final judgment of forfeiture, as signed by this

court on September 30, 2004. Because only the United States and

the mortgagee were parties to the final judgment of forfeiture, it

appears that claimants may challenge the final judgment of

forfeiture only by also challenging the July 28, 2005 order which

dismissed their claims.

2

challenge the final judgment of forfeiture.1 Rather, claimants

must first challenge the magistrate judge’s May 6, 2004 Findings

and Recommendations and the Order adopting it in full. 

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS:

1. Claimants are directed to file a motion to set aside the

magistrate judge’s May 6, 2004 Findings and Recommendations and the

Order adopting it in full, in addition to the final judgment of

forfeiture.

2. In order to provide the parties adequate time to refile

their briefs, claimants’ motion is CONTINUED to the August 1, 2005

Law and Motion Calendar. Claimants shall refile their moving brief

by July 1, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. The United States shall refile its

opposition brief by July 18, 2005 at 4:00 p.m., and claimants shall

refile their reply brief by July 25, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

3. In addition to filing their briefs, the parties shall also

send a Word or Wordperfect version of their briefs to Tim Hinkle,

Judicial Assistant, at thinkle@caed.uscourts.gov.

////

Case 2:01-cv-02127-LKK -GGH Document 63 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. The sale of the property at issue is stayed pending the

disposition of the claimant’s motions. The United States Marshals

Service shall take no further action to sell the property.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:01-cv-02127-LKK -GGH Document 63 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3