UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES,

Petitioner

v.

$9,800.00, more or less, in United 

States Currency and $1,097.00, more 

or less, in United States Currency,

Respondents

and

CARLOS TORRES MUNIZ,

Claimant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 1:20-CV-00194-RP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment of Forfeiture and Memorandum 

of Law in Support Thereof, filed May 5, 2021 (Dkt. 21). On July 8, 2021, the District Court referred 

the motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. 

I. Jurisdiction

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345 because 

it is an action commenced by the United States. The Court also has jurisdiction over this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a) because it is an action for forfeiture. The Court has in rem

jurisdiction over Respondents $9,800.00, more or less, in United States Currency and $1,097.00, 

Case 1:20-cv-00194-RP Document 22 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 6
2

more or less, in United States Currency (collectively, “the Respondent Currency”) pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1335(b) and 1395.

II. Background

On February 20, 2020, the United States filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture seeking 

forfeiture of the Respondent Currency. Dkt. 1. The United States brought the civil forfeiture action 

against the Respondent Currency in rem for violation of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 801-971, and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which states: 

§ 881. Forfeitures 

(a) Subject property.

The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no 

property right shall exist in them:

. . .

(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of 

value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in 

exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation 

of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and 

all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended 

to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.

The United States alleges in the Verified Complaint that the Pflugerville Police Department 

seized the Respondent Currency from the residence of Diego Martin-Torres (Martin-Torres) and 

his father, Carlos Torres Muniz (Torres), on September 6, 2019, pursuant to a narcotics search 

warrant. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 5-6, 9. Officers located approximately $1,100.00 in Martin-Torres’s bedroom 

and $9,800.00 in Torres’s bathroom. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Officers also found inside the residence 1,614 

grams of a crystal-like substance, which tested positive for methamphetamine; 148 grams of a 

white powdery substance, which tested positive for cocaine; and paraphernalia indicative of 

narcotics sales, including a “digital scale, baggies, glass bong, etc.” Id. ¶ 8. No employment history 

was found for either Torres or Martin-Torres. Id. ¶ 10. The Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) adopted the case on September 20, 2019. Id. ¶ 5. The currency was combined and has 

Case 1:20-cv-00194-RP Document 22 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 6
3

remained in the custody of the United States Marshals Service within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Id. In January 2020, Martin-Torres informed DEA Task Force Officer John H. Pelt that he paid 

Torres rent “with drug proceeds derived from the illegal sale of narcotics.” Id. ¶ 13.

Pursuant to the District Court’s Order (Dkt. 5), the Clerk of Court issued a Warrant for the 

Arrest of Property for the Respondent Currency on April 16, 2020. Dkt. 6. Notice of the forfeiture 

was posted on the official government internet website www.forfeiture.gov for at least 30 

consecutive days, beginning April 22, 2020, and ending May 21, 2020, as required by

Supplemental Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C). 

Declaration of Publication, Dkt. 9. In addition, on May 4, 2020, the Notice of Complaint for 

Forfeiture and Verified Complaint for Forfeiture were sent to Torres-Muniz, Torres, and Rodolfo 

Villa Jaimes Torres (Jaimes Torres)

1

via certified mail, return receipt requested, and regular mail. 

Dkt. 21 at 2. In each instance, the certified mail was returned “Unclaimed,” but the regular mail 

was not returned. Id.

Torres filed a claim on June 1, 2020, proceeding pro se. Dkt. 16 at 1. Torres’s claim did not 

include each of the elements required under Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i). Id. The Court ordered 

Torres to refile his claim in a manner that complied with Supplemental Rule G(5) and granted 

Torres’s motion for an extension of time to refile, but Torres did not refile his claim. Id. No other 

claims or answers were filed, and the time for filing them expired. Accordingly, the District Court 

granted the Government’s Motion to Strike Claim. Dkts. 17, 18. On December 23, 2020, in 

accordance with Rule 55(a) and pursuant to Petitioner’s motion, the Clerk entered default of the 

Respondent Currency. Dkts. 19, 20. The Government now moves for a default judgment of 

forfeiture against any and all of the right, title, and interest of Torres, Martin-Torres, Jaimes Torres, 

1 Rodolfo Villa Jaimes Torres is not identified in the Verified Complaint.

Case 1:20-cv-00194-RP Document 22 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 6
4

and any and all other potential claimants, who were served by publication, in the Respondent 

Currency. Dkt. 21 at 3-4.

III. Legal Standards

Under Rule 55, a default occurs when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise respond to a 

complaint within the time required. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 

1996). The Court has discretion to enter a default judgment in favor of the United States and against 

the seized property where no claimant timely files a verified claim or answer. See United States v. 

$38,750 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1115 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. One 1978 Piper 

Navajo PA-31 Aircraft, 748 F.2d 316, 317 (5th Cir. 1984).

IV. Analysis

The record in this case establishes that the United States is entitled to default judgment. 

Petitioner established that the Respondent Currency is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 881(a)(6) because it is property that was used or intended to be used to facilitate unlawful drug 

crimes in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, in its Verified Complaint, 

Petitioner established that the Respondent Currency is subject to forfeiture for knowing violation 

of the Controlled Substances Act because it constitutes property involved in a transaction related 

to a specified unlawful activity (i.e., buying and selling narcotics), is currency traceable to such 

property, and/or constitutes or is derived from proceeds of drug transactions. This finding is based 

on the following facts:

(1) the seizure of the large amount of cash; 

(2) the absence of legitimate work history to support the large amount of cash for MartinTorres and Torres; 

(3) the cocaine and methamphetamine found in Martin-Torres’s and Torres’s residence; 

(4) the drug paraphernalia consistent with narcotics trafficking; and

(5) Martin-Torres’s statement that he paid his father rent with drug proceeds.

Case 1:20-cv-00194-RP Document 22 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 6
5

Dkt. 1 ¶ 14. Based on these facts, the Court finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of 

the evidence that there is nexus between the Defendant Currency and violations of the Controlled 

Substances Act; that the Respondent Currency is subject to forfeiture to the United States of 

America, pursuant to Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(6); and that Torres, Martin-Torres, Jaimes Torres, 

and any and all other potential claimants, who were served by publication, were properly served 

with notice of this civil forfeiture action. 

The Court also finds that the Clerk’s Entry of Default was properly entered, and that Plaintiff

has shown that no claims or answers have been filed as required by Supplemental Rule G, 

18 U.S.C. §§ 983(a)(4)(A) and (B), and the Court’s Order for Warrant of Arrest of Property. 

Therefore, the Magistrate Court finds that Carlos Torres Munoz, Diego Martin Torres, Rodolfo 

Villa Jaimes Torres, and any and all other potential claimants, who were served by publication, all 

are in default, and that Plaintiff’s motion should be granted.

V. Recommendation

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court 

GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment of Forfeiture (Dkt. 21) and enter a Default 

Judgment of Forfeiture in favor of Petitioner the United States against the Respondent Currency.

The undersigned FURTHER RECOMMENDS that the District Court order that any and all 

right, title, and interest of Carlos Torres Munoz, Diego Martin Torres, Rodolfo Villa Jaimes Torres, 

and any and all other potential claimants, who were served by publication, in the Respondent 

Currency be held in default and forfeited to the United States. 

The undersigned FURTHER RECOMMENDS that the District Court order that the 

Respondent Currency be forfeited to the United States and that the United States Marshals Service

shall dispose of the Respondent Currency in accordance with law.

Case 1:20-cv-00194-RP Document 22 Filed 11/19/21 Page 5 of 6
6

The United States District Clerk is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation on all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by 

attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not 

registered by certified mail, return receipt requested.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk REMOVE this case from the Magistrate Court’s 

docket and RETURN it to the Honorable Robert Pitman.

VI. Warnings

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen 

(14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, 

except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to 

proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on November 19, 2021.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00194-RP Document 22 Filed 11/19/21 Page 6 of 6