Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02521/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02521-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1341 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN PLUMHOF,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER

PATROL,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

RELEASE PROPERTY, (Doc. No.

9);

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RESTITUTION IN

LIEU OF WRONGFULLY

FORFEITED PROPERTY, (Doc. No.

20); AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No.

14).

There are three motions currently before the Court, each of which relate to the

forfeiture of Plaintiff Karen Plumhof’s (“Plaintiff”) 1999 Chevrolet Malibu (“the Vehicle”).1

 On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed the first of the pending motions seeking the

release and return of the Vehicle. (Doc. No. 9.) On March 27, 2012, Defendant United

States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) filed the second of the pending motions

requesting dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. Nos. 14, 17.) This motion also responded to Plaintiff’s

motion for release and return of the Vehicle, arguing Plaintiff’s motion should be denied

1

 The Vehicle is identified by VIN No.: 1G1ND52M1X6216172 and California License Plate No.: 5YMW642. (Doc. Nos. 9, 14.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 

1 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 1 of 13
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

as moot because the Vehicle had already been sold. (Doc. No. 14.) On April 17, 2013,

Plaintiff filed the last of the pending motions in response to CBP’s motion to dismiss,

seeking restitution in lieu of wrongfully forfeited property. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff’s

final motion also seeks to amend/vacate her initial motion for return of the Vehicle. (Id.) 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the motions suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the motion hearing set for

June 6, 2013, is hereby vacated. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for

release of property is DENIED AS MOOT, (Doc. No. 9), Defendant’s motion to dismiss

the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED, (Doc. No. 14), and Plaintiff’s

motion for restitution in lieu of wrongfully forfeited property is DENIED, (Doc. No. 20). 

The Clerk of Court is instructed to transmit a copy of this order to Plaintiff and close the

case.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

This action concerns the forfeiture of Plaintiff’s Vehicle by CBP Agents on April

2, 2012.2

 On April 2, 2012, CBP Agents patrolling the Split Mountain area near

Westmorland, California observed a vehicle come to a stop on the side of the road.3

(Doc. No. 14 at 1:20-23.) The CBP Agents then observed four individuals emerge from

the bushes and enter the vehicle. (Id. at 1:23-24.) The vehicle then continued westbound

along the same route, at which point the CBP Agents performed a vehicle stop and

questioned all five of the vehicle’s occupants. (Id. at 1:24-25.) All five occupants

admitted to being in the United States illegally, including the driver, Lois Margaret

Wesolaski. (Id. at 1:25-26.) Based on this information, the CBP Agents at the scene

2 Because Plaintiff did not provide a detailed account of the facts leading up to the forfeiture of the Vehicle, and the events that transpired thereafter, (Doc. Nos. 9, 20), the Court takes most of the following allegations from Defendant’s moving papers as the facts are not in dispute. (Doc. Nos. 14, 17.) 

3

 Defendant alleges this is an area used by smugglers and illegal aliens to circumvent the Highway 86 checkpoint near Westmorland, which is approximately five miles west of the Imperial County Border Patrol Checkpoint. (Doc. No. 14 at 1:21-22;

3:4-7.) 

2 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 2 of 13
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

impounded the Vehicle pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) (bring in and harboring certain

aliens). (Id. at 1:27-2:2, 3:7-8.) 

On April 19, 2012, the Asset Forfeiture Office (“AFO”) of the El Centro Border

Patrol Sector (“El Centro”) mailed a seizure notice (“Seizure Notice”) to Plaintiff via

certified mail. (Doc. No. 17 at 1-5.) The Seizure Notice identified the vehicle seized, the

events leading up to the seizure, and the legal justification for the seizure. (Id.) The

Seizure Notice was received by Plaintiff on April 20, 2012.4

 (Id. at 6.) Attached to the

Seizure Notice was a separate form detailing the legal options available to Plaintiff and

Plaintiff’s ability to proceed administratively, by filing a petition with CBP, or judicially,

by filing a claim with CBP requesting that CBP refer the case to the U.S. Attorney

(“CAFRA Election of Proceedings Form”). The CAFRA Election of Proceedings Form

directed Plaintiff to check one of the following choices:

1. [ ] I REQUEST THAT CBP CONSIDER MY PETITION OR OFFER

ADMINISTRATIVELY BEFORE FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS ARE

INITIATED. My petition or offer is attached. By making this request, I

understand that I can request, in writing, that my case be referred for judicial

forfeiture proceedings at any time prior to the completion of the adminis- trative forfeiture proceedings or as set forth in the notice of seizure. If I

choose to wait for an administrative decision on my offer or petition, my

deadline for filing a claim as required by 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(2)(B) is 30 days from the date of the petition decision, or, if I choose to file a supplemental petition, my deadline for filing a claim as required by 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(2)(8)

is 30 days from the date of the supplemental petition. If I file a complete

claim and request for judicial proceedings (see option 3, below), CBP consideration of my offer or petition will stop and the case will be sent for judicial forfeiture proceedings.

2. [ ] I ABANDON ANY CLAIM OR INTEREST I MAY HAVE IN THE

PROPERTY. I understand that no additional notice about future proceed- ings’ concerning the property will be provided to me.

3. [ ] I AM FILING A CLAIM AND REQUESTING THAT CBP REFER

THE CASE FOR COURT ACTION. Please send the case to the U.S.

Attorney for court action. I have fully completed, signed and attached a SEIZED ASSET CLAIM FORM. I understand that if I have not fully

completed this form, or otherwise made a proper claim and request for judicial forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(2)(C), CBP will treat my

submission as a petition for relief under option I, described above. (Doc. No. 17 at 5) (emphasis added).

4

 Notice of the seizure was also published in the Imperial Valley Weekly on April 19, 2012, April 26, 2012, and May 3, 2012. (Doc. No. 17 at 28.) 

3 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 3 of 13
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

On May 9, 2012, the El Centro AFO received a petition from Plaintiff seeking a

return of the Vehicle (“Petition”) and an election to seek administrative relief (option

one). (Doc. No. 14 at 3:11-12; Doc. No. 17 at 7-13.) The Petition argued that the

Vehicle should be returned to Plaintiff because she was not operating the Vehicle at the

time the Vehicle was seized, she had no knowledge that the Vehicle was ever gone from

her premises, and no violation warranting forfeiture had occurred because no charges

were ever brought against the driver of the Vehicle. (Doc. No. 14 at 3:12-14; Doc. No.

17 at 8.)

On July 3, 2012, after reviewing the merits of Plaintiff’s Petition, the El Centro

AFO mailed a decision letter to Plaintiff granting the petition upon specified conditions:

(1) payment of $2,000.00 (plus any additional costs incurred for towing and storage); and

(2) execution of a hold harmless agreement (“the Decision Letter”). (Doc. No. 14 at

3:15-17; Doc. No. 17 at 14-18.) The Decision Letter also notified Plaintiff that failure to

accept the decision within twenty (20) days, and all the conditions stated therein, would

result in the sale of the Vehicle at auction. (Doc. No. 14 at 3:2-22; Doc. No. 17 at 15.) 

The Decision Letter further informed Plaintiff that she had ten (10) days following

receipt of the Decision Letter to request CBP to reconsider its decision. (Doc. No. 14 at

3:22-23.) 

On or about July 10, 2012, the sealed envelope containing the Decision Letter was

returned to El Centro AFO with the following handwritten words, “A unk did not know

this person.” (Doc. No. 14 at 4:1-3.) On August 15, 2012, Claudia Olmos (“Olmos”), a

forfeiture support assistant at the El Centro AFO, spoke with Plaintiff and informed her

that the sealed envelope containing the Decision Letter had been returned to El Centro

AFO with the above quoted language. (Id. at 4:4-6.) After confirming Plaintiff’s

address, the Decision Letter was resent to Plaintiff. (Id. at 4:7-8.) Plaintiff received the

Decision Letter on August 16, 2012. (Id. at 4:9-11.) On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff

sought reconsideration of the El Centro AFO’s decision (“Reconsideration Letter”). 

(Doc. No. 14 at 4:12-13; Doc. No. 17.) The Reconsideration Letter was sent to the Rio

4 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 4 of 13
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

Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector Asset Forfeiture Office (“RGV Office”) in accordance with CBP/OBP procedures.5

 (Doc. No. 14 at 4:13-16.) On September 17, 2012,

the RGV Office issued a decision concerning Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration

(“Reconsideration Decision”). (Doc. No. 14 at 4:17-18; Doc. No. 17 at 26-27.) The

Reconsideration Decision denied Plaintiff’s request finding Plaintiff did not provide any

new or unconsidered evidence demonstrating that the original decision was erroneous. 

(Id. at 4:18-21; Doc. No. 17 at 26-27.)

On September 24, 2012, the El Centro AFO received a copy of the Reconsideration

Decision issued by the RGV Office. (Doc. No. 14 at 4:25-26.) Because the Reconsideration Decision was dated, signed, and addressed to Plaintiff, and had no instructions for El

Centro AFO to deliver the Reconsideration Decision to Plaintiff, El Centro AFO was

under the belief that the RGV Office had already mailed the Reconsideration Decision to

Plaintiff. (Id. at 4:26-5:1.) However, on or about January 25, 2013, Albert Carlos

(“Carlos”), the supervisor at EL Centro AFO, informed David H. Salinas (“Salinas”), the

supervisor at the RGV Office, that the RGV Office never mailed the Reconsideration

Letter to Plaintiff. (Id. at 5:4-7.)

On November 21, 2012, the Vehicle was administratively forfeited and put up for

sale. (Doc. No. 14 at 5:10-11.) The Vehicle was sold at a CBP contractor auction for

$501.00 on January 9, 2012. (Id. at 5:12-13; Doc. No. 17 at 28.) The following chart

summarizes the dates pertinent to the instant motions:

Date Description

April 2, 2012 Vehicle seized by CBP

April 19, 2012 Seizure notice mailed to Plaintiff (timely).

Notice must be sent to Plaintiff no more than sixty (60) days after

the date of seizure. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i).

5

 Per CBP/OBP procedures any request for reconsideration must be sent to the

AFO of a different OBP Sector for review and decision. This is to ensure a different

sector decides the merits of the reconsideration request.

5 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 5 of 13
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

May 9, 2012 Plaintiff responds to seizure notice electing to file a petition for

mitigation with CBP -Timely. Plaintiff must respond within

thirty (30) days of receiving seizure notice.

July 3, 2012 CBP grants Plaintiff’s petition for mitigation on the condition that

Plaintiff pay $2,000 and sign a hold harmless agreement (“the

Decision Letter”).

July 10, 2012 Decision Letter returned to CBP with words “A unk did not know

this person.”

August 15, 2012 Plaintiff confirms her address with CBP and CBP sends Plaintiff

another copy of the Decision Letter.

August 16, 2012 Plaintiff receives Decision Letter from CBP.

August 22, 2012 Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector Asset Forfeiture Office

receives Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (timely). Request

for reconsideration must be received within ten (10) days of the

receipt of the denial of the petition.

November 17,

2010

Rio Grande Asset Forfeiture Office denies Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration. Notice of denial is not sent to Plaintiff

September 24,

2012

CBP receives a copy of the denial of Plaintiff’s reconsideration

request. Plaintiff still unaware

October 17, 2012 Plaintiff files civil complaint 

November 21,

2012

Vehicle administratively forfeited

January 9, 2013 Vehicle sold at CBP auction

January 25, 2013 CBP learns that Plaintiff never received notice that the reconsideration request was denied.

II. Procedural History 

On October 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint alleging that the Vehicle

was illegally seized by CBP, (Doc. No. 1), and on March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

motion for release of property. (Doc. No. 9.) CBP responded to Plaintiff’s motion for

6 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 6 of 13
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

release of property on March 27, 2013, arguing Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as

moot because the Vehicle had already been sold. (Doc. No. 14.) This response was

included within CBP’s independent motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1 and 12(b)(6). (Id.) On April 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

motion for restitution in lieu of wrongfully forfeited property, thereby “amending” or

vacating her previous motion seeking a return of the Vehicle. (Doc. No. 20.) On April

26, 2013 the Court consolidated the hearing dates for all three pending motions. (Doc.

No. 22.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. 12(b)(1): Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A motion to dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

addresses the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The party asserting jurisdiction bears

the burden of proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); McCauley v. Ford

Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that although the defendant is the

moving party the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the necessary jurisdictional facts

because the plaintiff invoked the court’s jurisdiction by filing the complaint).

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may attack the substance of the complaint’s jurisdictional

allegations even though the allegations are formally sufficient. See Corrie v. Caterpillar,

Inc., 503 F .3d 974, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2007); Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844, 847

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[U]nlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion can attack the

substance of a complaint’s jurisdictional allegations despite their formal sufficiency[.]”)

(internal quotation omitted). Additionally, the court may consider evidence outside the

pleadings to resolve factual disputes. Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th

Cir. 2009); see also Dreier, 106 F.3d at 847 (a challenge to the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may rely on affidavits or any other evidence properly

before the court).

///

7 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 7 of 13
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

II. 12(b)(6): Sufficiency of the Complaint

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal

sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Black, 250 F.3d 729, 732

(9th Cir. 2001). Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading stating a claim for relief contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The

function of this pleading requirement is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). “While a complaint attacked by a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels

and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do.” Id. A complaint does not “suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further

factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173

L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “All allegations of material fact are

taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. However, conclusory

allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140

(9th Cir. 1996); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Vehicle was seized pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b)(1), which

provides that any “vehicle. . . that has been used or is being used in the commission of a

violation of subsection (a) [bringing in and harboring certain aliens] . . . shall be seized

and subject to forfeiture.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b)(1). Plaintiff now seeks to set aside the

forfeiture and illegal sale of the Vehicle. A party seeking to challenge a nonjudicial

forfeiture that occurred after August 23, 2000, is limited to doing so under the Civil Asset

Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”). United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. Currency, 303

F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress has dictated in section 21 that CAFRAs

8 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 8 of 13
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

heightened burden of proof applies only to a ‘forfeiture proceeding commenced’ on or

after the statute’s effective date, which is August 23, 2000.”).

I. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”)

Pursuant to CAFRA, civil asset forfeiture proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. §

983. See Pub. L. 106-185, §2(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 202. Pursuant to § 983, if

property is seized by the government, the agency who seized the property must notify all

parties who have an interest in the seized property of its intent to forfeit the property no

later than 60 days after the date of the seizure. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(I). Such notice

must also advise all interested parties that he or she may seek to reclaim the property

administratively or judicially, i.e., one may file a petition for remission with the seizing

agency, or may file a claim with the seizing agency requesting that the agency refer the

case to the U.S. Attorney for a determination in federal district court. 50 C.F.R. §§

12.23(b), 12.24. 

A petition for remission “asks the agency for discretionary return of the property,”

while a claim “initiates the judicial process to decide whether the property should be

forfeited.” Malladi Drugs & Pharm., Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 885, 889 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

(“A party claiming ownership of the seized property may choose to pursue either the

administrative or the legal remedy, complying with the applicable filing deadline for its

choice.”). “The forfeiture statutes and regulations provide alternative, not sequential,

administrative and legal remedies for an administrative forfeiture.” Id. at 890. The two

remedies are distinct, and the election of remedies by the plaintiff affects the ability of a

district court to later consider the merits of the seizure or underlying decision of the

agency. See, e.g., Conservation Force v. Salazar, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1208 (N.D. Cal.

2009) aff’d, 646 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because CAFRA does not provide for

judicial review of administrative forfeiture decisions, the merits of those decisions fall

within the agency’s sphere of unreviewable discretion.”). For example, if a party pursues

the administrative path by filing a petition for remission, and the petition is denied, the

only avenue to set aside the declaration of forfeiture is if the notice of forfeiture was not

9 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 9 of 13
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

received by the party or if the party did not otherwise have reason to know of the seizure. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e).6

 Thus, once a notice of seizure and proposed forfeiture is sent to

the Plaintiff, a district court is divested of jurisdiction to review the forfeiture unless an

interested party timely submitted a claim with the seizing agency. Mohammad v. United

States, 169 Fed. Appx. 475 (7th Cir. 2006).

Here, it is undisputed that CBP gave timely notice to Plaintiff of the seizure and

intent to forfeit the Vehicle. CBP seized the Vehicle on April 2, 2012, and sent notice of

the seizure to Plaintiff via certified mail on April 19, 2012. Plaintiff acknowledges that

she received the Seizure Notice on April 20, 2012. (Doc. No. 17 at 6; Doc. No. 20 at 1,

Ex. A.) Therefore, the Court finds the notice was timely under 18 U.S.C. §

983(a)(1)(A)(I) (stating that notice of the seizure and intent to forfeit the property must be

sent to a party no more than sixty (60) days after the date of seizure. See Malladi Drugs

and Pharm., Ltd. v. Tandy, 538 F. Supp. 2d 162, 169-170 (D.D.C. 2008) aff'd on other

grounds, 552 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

It is also undisputed that the seizure notice included a CAFRA Election of Proceedings Form, thereby providing Plaintiff with a list of options as to how to proceed in

the event she wished to contest the seizure and seek return of the Vehicle. (Doc. No. 20,

Ex. A.) Specifically, the seizure notice informed plaintiff to select one of the following

options: (1) file a petition with CBP and elect to proceed administratively; (2) abandon

6

 Section 983(e) provides:

(1) Any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture

proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice

may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with respect to that person’s interest in the property, which motion shall be granted if–

(A) the Government knew, or reasonably should have known, of the moving party’s interest and failed to take reasonable steps to provide such party with notice; and

(B) the moving party did not know or have reason to know of the

seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim.

18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1)(A).

10 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 10 of 13
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

any claim or interest in the property; or (3) file a claim and request that CBP refer the

case for court action in a federal district court. (Doc. No. 17 at 11.) The CAFRA

Election of Proceedings Form also stated that if Plaintiff elected to file a petition with

CBP (option one), and was dissatisfied with the petition decision (initial or supplemental

petition), Plaintiff would have an additional thirty (30) days from the date of the initial

decision, or thirty (30) days form the date of the supplemental decision, to file a claim to

the property requesting a referral to the U.S. Attorney. (Doc. No. 20, Ex. A at 2.) If

Plaintiff failed to file a claim within the times frames specified above, “the property may

be forfeited to the United States.” (Id.)

On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed her response to the Seizure Notice, thereby

selecting option one and electing to proceed administratively. (Doc. No. 17 at 11.) 

Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, CBP granted Plaintiff’s petition for mitigation, and issued a

decision on the petition stating that CBP would return the Vehicle to Plaintiff provided

that she remit $2,000.00 and execute a hold harmless agreement. Plaintiff received notice

of CBP decision regarding the petition on August 16, 2012. Accordingly, pursuant 18

U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(B), as specified in the Seizure Notice, Plaintiff had thirty (30) days

from the date of the petition decision, or thirty (30) days from the date of the supplemental decision, to file a claim with CBP requesting a referral of her case to the U.S. Attorney. At no point however, has Plaintiff ever filed a claim with CBP requesting a referral

to the U.S. Attorney or otherwise indicated that she wished to enter forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(C). Therefore, because the thirty (30) day time

limit has long since expired, and such time limit applies only to petition decisions and

supplemental decisions, and not to motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s complaint may

not proceed because she never properly filed a “claim” with CBP thereby instituting a

cause of action in federal court. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff selected option one, and elected to proceed administratively, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of

Plaintiff’s complaint. See Conkey v. United States, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Cal.

11 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 11 of 13
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

2008). The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument that her case is still pending, and therefore

the thirty (30) day time period never commenced, without merit. The Seizure Notice

clearly states that any “claim” filed with CBP requesting referral to the U.S. Attorney to

proceed in federal district court must be sent to CBP no later than thirty (30) days

following the petition decision or supplemental decision. Thus, when CBP issued its

decision on July 3, 2012, the thirty (30) day time period commenced.7

 Plaintiff never

filed a supplemental petition, and Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration did not change

this date or otherwise stay the applicable deadline. Thus, because Plaintiff never filed a

“claim” with CBP requesting a referral of the case to the U.S. Attorney, the Court is

without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint. 

As a result, the Court may only consider whether Plaintiff received proper and

timely notice of the seizure of her Vehicle (not notice of the decision regarding reconsideration). See Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1196 (11th Cir. 2005)

(“Section 983(e) provides his exclusive remedy to challenge the administrative forfeiture.

The only issue this court can consider is whether Mesa received the appropriate notice in

sufficient time to contest the agency's action of summarily forfeiting the check.”);

Rodriguez v. United States Dept. of Justice, 4. Fed. Appx. 104, 106 (2nd Cir. 2001)

(stating court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over motion for return of forfeited

property because plaintiff filed claim with agency two weeks late). However, because the

parties do not contest that Plaintiff received timely notice of CBP’s seizure of the

Vehicle, the Court finds Due Process has been satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to consider the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to release property is DENIED AS MOOT, (Doc. No. 9), Plaintiff’s

motion for restitution in lieu of wrongfully forfeited property is DENIED, (Doc. No. 20),

7

 Even if the Court finds the thirty (30) day time period did not commence until Plaintiff recieived notice of CBP’s decision (which is contrary to the unambiguous

language of the seizure notice), Plaintiff never filed a “claim” with CBP. 

12 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 12 of 13
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

and Defendant CBP’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, (Doc. No. 14). The Clerk of

Court is instructed to serve this order on Plaintiff and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

13 12cv2521 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-02521-AJB-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/24/13 Page 13 of 13