Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01741/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01741-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
19.5 Acres of Pasture Land Located on Watts Valley Road in Tollhouse, California, Fresno County, APN: 153-290-01
Defendant
Ernesto Ceja
Claimant
Laura Ceja
Claimant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. CV F 06-1741 AWI DLB

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT

vs. JUDGMENT

(Doc. 19.)

19.5 ACRES OF PASTURE LAND

LOCATED ON WATTS VALLEY ROAD 

IN TOLLHOUSE, CALIFORNIA, FRESNO

COUNTY, APN: 153-290-01,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this civil forfeiture action, plaintiff United States of American (“Government”) seeks:

1. Default judgment against the interests of Ernesto Ceja and Laura Ceja in the defendant

real property known as 19.5 Acres of Pasture Land Located on Watts Valley Road in

Tollhouse, California, Fresno County, APN: 153-290-01(hereinafter “defendant real

property”); and

2. Entry of a final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest

in the defendant real property.

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 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 The below factual recitation is based on the Government’s papers and record before this Court. 1

2

BACKGROUND1

Seizure

The Government alleges that In October 2006, in the State and Eastern District of California,

Ernesto Ceja and others conspired to manufacture, distribute and to possess with intent to distribute

marijuana in both Fresno and Kings County. The Government alleges the Ernest Ceja used the

defendant real property to facilitate the distribution of marijuana by cultivating and processing the

marijuana on the defendant real property. The allegations contained in the Verified Complaint arose out

of the same investigation underlying the parallel criminal prosecutions of Ernesto Ceja and Jesus Ceja

in United States v. Ernesto Ceja, et.al., 1:06-CR-00387-AWI. On October 17, 2007, law enforcement

officers executed a search warrant at the defendant real property. As a result of the search law

enforcement officers located and seized 223 marijuana plants which were growing on the defendant real

property. Law enforcement officers also located 485 marijuana plants hanging to dry, three boxes of

processed marijuana, one black bag containing fourteen one pound bags of processed marijuana, and

marijuana trimmings. Additionally, law enforcement located and seized a digital scale, one box of oven

bags and a .22 caliber colt handgun. In an earlier interview with Laura Ceja (wife of Ernesto Ceja),

Laura indicated to law enforcement that she believed Ernesto Ceja was involved in illegal drug sales and

that Ernesto Ceja was growing marijuana on a property which was approximately 20 acres. The

Complaint additionally sets forth the facts giving rise to Ernesto Ceja’s indictment for drug trafficking.

The defendant real property was posted with a copy of the Complaint and Notice of the

Complaint in a manner consistent with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 985 on December 18, 2006. By

separate order, lodged with the court on December 4, 2006 and signed on December 12, 2006, United

States Magistrate Judgment Dennis L. Beck authorized public notice of the complaint to be made by four

publications in the Fresno Business Journal. Publication in a manner consistent with the Court’s order

was made on January 12, 19, 26 and February 2, 2007, and a declaration of such publication was filed

with the Court on February 15, 2007. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 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

The Government’s Claims

On December 1, 2006, the Government filed its complaint for forfeiture in rem (“complaint”)

in this action to claim that the defendant real property is subject to forfeiture to the Government under

21U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) in that the defendant real property was used or intended to be used to commit or

to facilitate the commission a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 et.seq., an offense punishable by more than

one year’s imprisonment. 

Notice Of Forfeiture Action

This Court issued its December 12, 2006 order for publication (“publication order”) for the

Government to provide public notice of the complaint by four publications in Fresno Business Journal.

Publication in a manner consistent with the Court’s order was made on January 12, 19, 26 and February

2, 2007 and a declaration of such publication was filed with the court on February 15, 2007. 

On December 15, 2006, copies of the complaint, notice of the complaint, application and order

for publication, lis pendens, order setting mandatory scheduling conference, notice of availability of a

magistrate judge and letter dated December 4, 2006, were personally served upon Ernesto Ceja. On

December 19, 2006, copies of the above-referenced documents were personally served upon Laura Ceja.

The Government represents that on January 5, 2007, counsel granted attorney Eddie Ruiz a 30

day extension of time to file a claim in this case and on March12, 2007, Mr. Ruiz indicated that he

would not be filing on their behalf. 

Default Entries

At the Government’s request, this Court’s clerk entered default in this action on March 14, 2007

against Ernesto Ceja and Laura Ceja. 

DISCUSSION

Complaint’s Sufficiency

The Government contends that the allegations in the verified complaint regarding the defendant

real property, provide ample grounds for the Court to find that facts exist to support the forfeiture of the

defendant real property. A complaint’s sufficiency is a factor to consider whether to grant default

judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9 Cir. 1986). The Government notes that the th

allegations in the Complaint arise from the underlying parallel criminal prosecution of Ernesto Ceja and

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 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

Jesus Ceja. Thus, according to the Government, the defendant real property is subject to forfeiture under

21 U.S.C. §881(a)(7) which provides for the forfeiture of “all real property, including any right, title and

itnerest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenance

or improvements, which is used or intended to be used in any manner or part to commit or to facilitate

the commission of a violation of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter.” The Government

contends that the marijuana growth and processing occurring on defendant real property as set forth in

the Complaint falls squarely within the statutory language. 

Notice Requirements

The Government contends that it provided required notice for the defendant real property’s

forfeiture. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government to deprive property

without “due process of law.” Individuals whose property interests are at stake are entitled to “notice

and an opportunity to be heard.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 48,

114 S.Ct. 492 (1993). In civil forfeiture actions involving real property, Congress has eliminated the

ned for the issuance and service of a warrant of arrest in rem. 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(3). Instead the

government may initiate forfeiture action against real property by “posting a notice of the complaint on

the property[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(1)(B). 

Because this action is in rem, it is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty

and Maritime Claims (“Supplemental Rules”). Supplemental Rule G(4) provides for notice of forfeiture

proceedings by publication alone. This Court’s Local Admiralty and In Rem Rules echo Supplemental

Rule G(4)’s notice of forfeiture action by court-ordered publication in a newspaper of general circulation

in the district where the action is filed. See Local Rule A-530. The Government accomplished such

notice with the publication order and publishing notice of this action and the arrest of the defendant real

property in the Fresno Business Journal in January and February 2007.

However, when the Government knows of an owner of defendant property, the owner has a

constitutional right of due process to require “the Government to make a greater effort to give him notice

than otherwise would be mandated by Supplemental Rule C(4).” United States v. Real Property, 135

F.3d 1312, 1315 (9 Cir. 1998). For such persons, theGovernment must attempt to provide actual notice th

by means “‘reasonably calculated under all circumstances’ to apprise [the person] of the pendency of

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 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

the . . . forfeiture[.]” Dusenberry v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168, 122 S.Ct. 694 (2002). The

Government must provide such notice “as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might

reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315,

70 S.Ct. 652 (1950). “Reasonable notice, however, requires only that the government attempt to provide

actual notice; it does not require that the government demonstrate that it was successful in providing

actual notice.” Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11 Cir. 2005). th

This Court’s Local Rule A-540 addresses notice to persons known to have an interest in property

subject to forfeiture. The rule requires that a party seeking default judgment in an action in rem to show

to the Court’s satisfaction that due notice and posting of the real property has been given by: (1)

publication; (2) if the property is in the hands of a law enforcement officer, by personal service on the

person having custody prior to its possession by law enforcement agency or officer; and (3) by personal

service or certified mail, return receipt requested, to every other person who has not appeared in the

action and is known to have an interest in the property; provided that failure to give actual notice to such

other person may be excused upon a satisfactory showing of diligent efforts to give such notice without

success. Local Rule A-540(a).

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Supplemental Rules and Local Rule A-540(a), the

Government provides sufficient notice if such notice complies with F.R.Civ.P. 4 requirements. See

F.R.Civ.P. 4(n)(1) (when a federal statute authorizes forfeiture, “[n]otice to claimants of the property

shall then be sent in the manner provided by statute or by service of a summons under this rule.”)

Here, the Government personally served Ernesto Ceja and Laura Ceja, the recorded owners of

the defendant real property with the complaint, publication order and other papers regarding this action.

No notice issues arise as to the defendant real property.

Failure To Answer

The Government contends that this Court’s clerk properly entered defaults against Ernesto Ceja

and Laura Ceja. Supplemental Rule G(5) addresses responsive pleadings in civil forfeiture actions such

as this and requires a person who asserts an interest in or right against the subject property to file a

verified claim to identify the interest or right within 30 days after the earlier of: (1) service of the

Government’s complaint; or (2) completion of publication notice. Failure to comply with Supplemental

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 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

Rule G(5) requirements precludes a person to establish standing as a party to a forfeiture action. Real

Property, 135 F.3d at 1317. 

As outlined above, the Government on December 15, 2006, personally served Ernesto Ceja and

on December 19, 2006, personallyserved Laura Ceja with copies of the complaint, publication order and

other papers related to this action. Publication notice was completed on February 2, 2007, and the

Government filed proof of such publication notice on February 15, 2007. More than 30 days have

passed since completion of publication notice and since service of the complaint on Ernesto Ceja and

Laura Ceja. This Court’s clerk properly entered defaults upon failure of the potential claimants to

respond to the Government’s complaint and notices.

Default Judgment

The Government seeks judgment against the interests of Ernesto Ceja and Laura Ceja in the

defendant real property and final forfeiture judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest

in the defendant real property. The Supplemental Rules do not provide a procedure to seek default

judgment in an action in rem. Supplemental Rule A provides: “The general Rules of Civil Procedure

for the United States District Courts are also applicable to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent

that they are inconsistent with these Supplemental Rules.”

Default entry is a prerequisite to default judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 55(a) governs entry of default:

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall

enter the party’s default.” Generally, the default entered by the clerk establishes a defendant’s liability:

Rule 55 gives the court considerable leeway as to what it may require as a

prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment. “The general rule of law is that upon

default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of

damages will be taken as true.” (citations omitted). Geddes v. United Financial Group,

559 F.2d 557, 560 (9 Cir. 1977). th

Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-918 (9 Cir. 1987). th

As noted above, the Government properly obtained default entries against the interests of Ernesto

Ceja and Laura Ceja. There is no impediment to default judgment sought by the Government. The

Government properly seeks judgment against the interests of the entire world, that is, a final forfeiture

judgment to vest in the Government all right, title and interest in the defendant real property. “A

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 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

judgment in rem affects the interests of all persons in designated property. . . . [T]he plaintiff is seeking

to secure a pre-existing claim in the subject property and to extinguish or establish the nonexistence of

similar interests of particular persons.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246, n. 12, 78 S.Ct. 1228

(1958).

In light of the defaults, a final forfeiture judgment is in order for the Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS to:

1. GRANT plaintiff United States of America default judgment against the interests of

Ernesto Ceja and Laura Ceja in the defendant real property;

2. ENTER final forfeiture judgment to vest in plaintiff United States of America all right,

title and interest in the defendant real property; and

3. ORDER plaintiff United States of America, within 10 days of service of an order

adopting the findings and recommendations, to submit a proposed default and final

forfeiture judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations and order

adopting them.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than October 19,

2007, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties and otherwise in compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

Responses to objections shall be filed and served no later than December 15, 2006 and otherwise in

compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(d). The district judge will review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01741-AWI -DLB Document 23 Filed 09/20/07 Page 7 of 7