ZANE BALSAM, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-80958-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/Reinhart 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

I ------------------

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by 

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart (the "Report") on July 13, 2021. (DE 30). The Report 

recommends dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Id.). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (DE 38; DE 40). The Government responded to Plaintiff's 

objections. (DE 39; DE 41). 

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the Government violated a Consent to Forfeiture and 

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (the "Agreements") that it entered with Plaintiff in 200tby seizing 

three assets that were not listed in the Agreements. (DE 1 at 2-3). Plaintiff seeks thei}eturn of 

illegally seized assets, which he claims "exceed[] some $7,000,000," the return of funds seized 

from his inmate funds account, and a declaration that the Government is not legally entitled to 

collect any more from him. (Id.). The Government has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 

under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that Plaintiff's forfeiture and restitution judgments are final and that 

the Government has not violated the Agreements. (DE 29 at 7-8). The Government further alleges 

that under the Crime Victim Rights Act and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, even if 

Case 9:20-cv-80958-DMM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2021 Page 1 of 3
Plaintiff's assets had been illegally seized, he would not be entitled to recover any money that has 

already been distributed to the victims of his crimes. (Id at 9). 

The Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint because of a number of 

deficiencies. First, the Report correctly concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint is a shotgun pleading 

because "each Count incorporates all of the predecessor counts." (DE 30 at 3). As the Report 

recognizes, this Court can sua sponte dismiss a shotgun pleading. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 

878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018). Second, the Report points out that Plaintiff has not explained 

the basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. (DE 30 at 3). I agree with this conclusion. If 

Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he must clearly state the federal law he is invoking that 

affords this Court jurisdiction. He must also allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim 

for relief under the law he invokes. Third, as the Report explains, Plaintiff has not provided any 

legal authority to support his request that the Court require the Government to return the seized 

assets. As with subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff must clarify what law(s) give the Court the 

power to order the Government to return his property. (Id at 4). Finally, the Report concludes that 

the Complaint does not give the Government proper notice of the claims against it because (1) 

Plaintiff has not explained whether other assets were also seized to arrive at the $7,000,000 figure 

in his Complaint; and (2) Plaintiff has not stated how rriuch money has been taken from his inmate 

account or when and where the money was taken. (Id at 6). 

Plaintiff objects to the Report on three grounds. First, he argues that the Report did not 

apply the less stringent pleading standards afforded to pro se litigants. (DE 38 at 1). I disagree. 

While it is true that a court must construe pro se pleadings liberally, it must still dismiss a 

complaint if it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 

1157, 1159 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, even under a less stringent pleading standard, Plaintiff's 

2 

Case 9:20-cv-80958-DMM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2021 Page 2 of 3
Complaint is plainly deficient for the reasons explained in the Report. Second, Plaintiff argues that 

the Court should have granted his Motion for Default Judgment against the Government for not 

timely responding to Plaintiff's Complaint. (DE 38 at 3). Judge Reinhart has already denied that 

Motion "[i]n the interest of resolving this case on the merits." (DE 19 at 3). As such, I am not 

persuaded by this objection. Finally, Plaintiff takes issue with one sentence in the Report stating 

that "the Court entered a final order of forfeiture for 12 specified assets" because he believes it 

creates the impression that he consented to the forfeiture of all twelve assets. Because the Report 

clearly explains that Plaintiff disputes the seizure of the three assets listed in his Complaint, this 

objection is without merit. 

After reviewing the Report and the record, I agree with Magistrate Judge Reinhart's 

conclusions and find that his reasoning as set forth in the Report is accurate and thorough. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

(1) Magistrate Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation (DE 30) is ADOPTED. 

(2) Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

(3) Plaintiff, ifhe so desires, may file an amended complaint by October 11, 2021. Failure 

to do so may result in dismissal of this action. 

SIGNED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 2/ day 

D ALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3 

Case 9:20-cv-80958-DMM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2021 Page 3 of 3