Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leung Chinn
Claimant
Betty K. Chinn
Claimant
Byron Pickle
Claimant
Real Property Located at 17 Coon Creek Road, Hawkins Bar, California, APN: 008-760-12
Defendant
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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Real Property Located at 17 Coon

Creek Road, Hawkins Bar,

California, APN: 008-760-12, 

 Defendant,

________________________________

Leung Chinn, Betty K. Chinn,

Byron Pickle, 

 Claimants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-1937-GEB-DAD

ORDER RESCHEDULING CLAIMANT

BYRON PICKLE’S MOTIONS*

Claimant Byron Pickle (“Pickle”) filed a motion in this in rem

action on August 2, 2011, in which Pickle seeks to quash a search

warrant, suppress evidence and dismiss this case. (ECF No. 33.) This

motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and

under Rule G(8) of the Supplemental Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions

(“Rule”). Pickle also filed a motion on September 6, 2011, in which he

moves to stay the forfeiture proceedings in this case (ECF No. 42); this

motion is filed under 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2). The government opposes

Pickle’s motions, arguing that it filed a motion on October 8, 2011, in

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 49 Filed 10/21/11 Page 1 of 2
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

which it seeks to have Pickle’s claim and answer stricken under Rule

G(8)(c)(i), that must be decided before Pickle’s motions can be decided.

The government’s motion to strike is currently set for hearing on

December 5, 2011. The government also argues that if its motion to

strike is granted, Pickle will not have standing to bring his motions.

Rule G(8)(c)(ii)(A) prescribes that a motion to strike a claim

or answer of a claimant “must be decided before any motion by the

claimant to dismiss the action.” The advisory committee notes to Rule

G(8) prescribe that “a motion to dismiss the action cannot be addressed

until the court has decided any government motion to strike the claim or

answer” because “[a dismissal] motion . . . may be made only by a

claimant who establishes claim standing.” Further, 18 U.S.C. §

981(g)(2)(B) prescribes that a claimant may only seek a stay of a civil

forfeiture action if “the claimant has standing to assert a claim in the

civil forfeiture proceeding.”

Since this authority reveals that the government’s motion to

strike must be decided before Pickle’s motions are decided, Pickle’s

motions which are scheduled for hearing on October 24, 2011, are

rescheduled to be heard on January 23, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: October 20, 2011

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 49 Filed 10/21/11 Page 2 of 2