IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

$6,600 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY, in rem, 

Defendant. 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ANNEMARIE SGARLATA 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BRIAN L. MICHAELS 

259 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 300-D 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

Attorney for Claimant Sean Beeman 

MARSH, Judge 

3:12-cv-01624-MA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This civil forfeiture proceeding comes before the Court on 

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Jl39) on the grounds that 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 1 of 11
Claimant Sean Beeman lacks standing to contest forfeiture of the 

Defendant Currency. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's 

Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The material facts are undisputed and taken from the parties' 

submissions on summary judgment. On March 13, 2012, United States 

Postal Inspection Service Inspector Scott Helton intercepted a 

parcel addressed to Claimant. Inspector Helton noticed that the 

parcel was heavily taped, sent via express mail, and the return 

address label bore a name not apparently associated with the return 

address. A narcotics-detection canine deployed by Inspector Helton 

alerted to the odor of narcotics on the parcel. 

The next day, Inspector Helton and other officers traveled to 

the address listed on the parcel and spoke with Claimant. Upon 

request, Claimant permitted the officers to open the parcel in 

which the officers subsequently found the Defendant Currency. 

Claimant told the officers that the currency in the parcel was the 

repayment of a loan from a friend. 

On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed this civil forfeiture 

proceeding alleging the Defendant Currency represented proceeds 

traceable to an illegal narcotics transaction. On Octobe.r 22, 

2012, Claimant filed a Claim to the Defendant Currency alleging 

that he had an ownership interest in the currency and attaching 

sworn statements from Tyson Shatswell and Derek Jester stating that 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 2 of 11
they sent the currency in repayment of a loan and the currency was 

not involved in any illegal activity. 

In his deposition Claimant again asserted that the Defendant 

Currency was sent to him as repayment of a loan. Claimant asserted 

his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment 

to the United States Constitution when asked whether he had a 

written loan agreement with Mr. Shatswell and Mr. Jester, whether 

he had an oral loan agreement with Mr. Shatswell and Mr. Jester, 

whether he had a security interest in the Defendant Currency, and 

whether· the parcel was within his custody or control while it was 

in transit. Claimant testified that he had never secured a 

judgment against Mr. Shatswell or Mr. Jester, or perfected a lien 

against the Defendant Currency. Claimant testified he was not 

aware that a package containing the Defendant Currency was being 

sent to him before the parcel arrived. 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.n Washington Mut. Ins. v. United 

States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). See also Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a). The moving party must show the absence of a dispute as 

to a material fact. Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 

1146 (9th Cir. 2005). In response to a properly supported motion 

for summary judgment,· the nonmoving party must go beyond the 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 3 of 11
pleadings and show there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact 

for trial. Id. "This burden is not a light one. The nonmoving party must do more than show there is some 'metaphysical 

doubt' as to the material facts at issue.'' In re Oracle Corp. Sec. 

Litig., 627 F. 3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

A dispute as to a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party.'' Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The court must draw all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Sluimer v. Verity, 

Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 587 (9th Cir. 2010). "Summary judgment cannot 

be granted where contrary inferences may be drawn from the evidence 

as to material issues." Easter v. Am. W. Fin, 381 F.3d 948, 957 

(9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A "mere disagreement or bald 

assertion" that a genuine dispute as to a material fact exists 

"will not preclude the grant of summary judgment." Deering v. 

Lassen Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 2:07-CV-1521-JAM-DAD, 2011 WL 202797, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2011) (citing Harper v. Wallingford, 877 

F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 1989)). When the nonmoving party's claims 

are factually implausible, that party must "come forward with more 

persuasive evidence than otherwise would be necessary." 

Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 

2009) (citation omitted) . The substantive law governing a claim or 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 4 of 11
a defense determines whether a fact is material. Miller v. Glenn 

Miller Prod., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2006). If the 

resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of the 

claim, the court may grant summary judgment. Id. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment arguing that Claimant 

lacks standing to contest the forfeiture of the Defendant Currency 

because he is an unsecured.creditor who lacks a viable possessory 

or ownership interest. 

A claimant seeking to contest a civil forfeiture must 

establish both Article III and statutory standing. United States 

v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Article I II standing is at issue in this case. In a civil 

forfeiture action, whether the claimant has Article III standing 

"turns upon whether the claimant has a sufficient interest in the 

property to create a case or controversy." United States v. Real 

Property Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187, 1191 

(9th Cir. 2004). As such, a civil forfeiture claimant "must 

establish the three elements of standing, namely, that the 

plaintiff suffered an injury in fact, that there is a causal 

connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and 

that it ·is likely the injury will be redressed by a favorable 

decision." United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 

629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). "Claimants in civil forfeiture actions 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 5 of 11
can satisfy this test by showing that they have a 'colorable 

interest in the property,' which includes an ownership interest or 

a possessory interest." Id. (quoting 5208 Los Fanciscos Way, 385 

F.3d at 1191). Ultimately, however, the claimant's burden to 

demonstrate Article III standing is "not a heavy one." 5208 Los 

Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d at 1191. 

"The elements of standing 'must be supported in the same way 

as any other matter on which the [claimant] bears the burden of 

proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the 

successive stages of the litigation.'" $133,420.00 in U.S. 

Currency, 672 F.3d at 638 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 

504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). At summary judgment, the claimant must 

"'set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which 

for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be 

true,'" and from those facts the court must ask "whether 'a fairminded jury' could find that the claimant had standing on the 

evidence presented.'' Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561). 

"A claimant asserting an ownership interest in the defendant 

property" must present "'some evidence of ownership' beyond the 

mere assertion in order to survive a motion for summary judgment." 

Id. at 639 (quoting United States v. $81,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 

189 F. 3d 28, 35 (1st Cir. 1999)). "The fact that property was 

seized from the claimant's possession, for example, may be 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 6 of 11
sufficient evidence, when coupled with a claim of ownership, to 

establish standing at the summary judgment stage." Id. 

Plaintiff argues that Claimant lacks standing because 

Claimant's status in relation to the Defendant Currency is best 

characterized as that of an unsecured creditor. Plaintiff 

maintains that Claimant's status as the addressee of the parcel 

does not ripen his interest as an unsecured creditor into a 

possessory or ownership interest sufficient to confer standing. 

Claimant, among other arguments, responds that his status as the 

addressee of the parcel containing the Defendant Currency is 

sufficient to establish standing to contest the forfeiture of the 

currency. 

Plaintiff specifically relies upon United States v. $960,000 

in U.S. Currency, 307 !"ed. App'x 251 (11th Cir. 2006), for the 

proposition that the addressee of a parcel containing currency does 

not have a possessory or ownership interest sufficient to confer 

standing to contest forfeiture of the currency. In $960,000 in 

U.S. Currency, the claimant sought to contest the forfeiture of 

money seized from a package sent from Miami to a corporation in 

Colombia. 307 !"ed. App'x at 252. A representative of the 

corporation submitted a declaration attesting that the claimant was 

the intended recipient of the package and the corporation was to 

contact the claimant when the package arrived. Id. The Eleventh 

Circuit found "[t]he fact that [th~ corporation] identified [the 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 7 of 11
claimant] as the intended recipient of the carton is a far cry from 

proving that [the claimant] had an ownership or possessory interest 

in the carton containing the defendant currency." Id. at 256. The 

court specifically noted that the claimant "was never in actual 

possession of the currency," and at best had "an expected or 

inchoate possessory interest" as the intended recipient of the 

property. Id. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the 

claimant had "not produced evidence sufficient to establish that he 

either owned or possessed the carton containing the defendant 

currency," and affirmed the district court's finding that the 

claimant lacked standing. Id. 

Similarly, in United States v. $11,900 in U.S. Currency, No. 

09-2303-STA, 2009 WL 3571554 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2009), the 

Western District of Tennessee struck a claim for lack of standing 

because the claimant failed to demonstrate that he had an ownership 

or possessory interest in the defendant currency despite being 

listed as the addressee of the package from which the currency was 

seized. 2009 WL 3571554, at *5. Because the defendant currency 

was still in transit, the court, solely citing $960,000 in U.S. 

Currency, reasoned that the currency still belonged to the sender. 

$11,900 in U.S. Currency, 2009 WL 3571554, at *5. 

Finally, the Western District of Michigan came to a similar 

conclusion in United States v. $9,770 in U.S. Currency, No. 1:12-

cv-354, 2013 WL 1340153 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2013). There, the 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 8 of 11
claimant argued he was the owner of the defendant currency seized 

from a parcel addressed to claimant because it represented an 

investment the sender was making in the claimant's business. Id. 

at *l. Noting that the claimant never had possession of the 

defendant currency, the court found that "[t)he mere fact that he 

was the intended recipient of a package still in transit, along 

with his self-serving assertions, is insufficient to show a 

possessory or ownership interest to contest forfeiture." Id. at 

*3. 

Although I acknowledge there is support in caselaw for 

Plaintiff's position that Claimant's status as addressee of the 

parcel does not ripen his interest in the Defendant Currency into 

an interest sufficient to confer standing to contest this 

forfeiture, I do not find this caselaw to be persuasive. At the 

outset I note the Ninth Circuit has treated an addressee's interest 

in an in-transit parcel more seriously than the merely "inchoate" 

or "expected" interest the Eleventh Circuit identified in $960,000 

in U.S. Currency. See 307 Fed. App' x at 256. In the criminal 

search and seizure context, for example, the Ninth Circuit has 

found that the addressee of a parcel has standing to raise a Fourth 

Amendment challenge to the search and seizure of the package 

because an addressee has a "possessory interest . . . in the timely 

delivery of a package." United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206, 

1210 (9th Cir. 2002). 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 9 of 11
More to the point, however, the record on summary judgment 

contains sufficient evidence to establish at this stage of the 

proceedings that Claimant has a colorable ownership interest in the 

Defendant Currency. Not only was Claimant the addressee of the 

parcel from which the Defendant Currency was seized, but he also 

provided additional evidence concerning his ownership interest in 

the Defendant Currency through his explanation that it represented 

repayment of a loan and the corroborating statements of Mr. Jester 

and Mr. Shatswell. This evidence is sufficient to carry Claimant's 

burden of establishing standing on summary judgment. See 

$133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d at 639. 

This evidence also materially distinguishes Claimant from a 

typical unsecured creditor. Unsecured creditors lack standing to 

contest the forfeiture of the debtor's property because their 

interest is in the debtor's estate generally, not in any particular 

asset in the debtor's estate. See $20,193.39 U.S. Currency, 16 

F.3d 344, 346 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Currency Seized 

from Chase Bank Account No. XXXXXX3320, No. 3:13-cv-00562-MA, 2014 

WL 3891748, at *4 (D. Or. Aug. 7, 2014). Unlike a typical 

unsecured creditor, Claimant's alleged interest in the currency 

found in the parcel addressed to him is very particularized; it is 

not the sort of generalized interest in a debtor's estate that 

precludes an unsecured creditor from having standing to contest the 

forfeiture of the debtor's property. 

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 10 of 11
In light of the relatively low threshold necessary .to 

establish standing at this stage of the proceedings, I conclude on 

this record that Claimant has carried his burden of demonstrating 

that he has a colorable ownership interest in the Defendant 

Currency. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing rea:,wns, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary 

Judgment (jf39) is DENIED. Consistent with the Court's Order (#42) 

entered June 17, 2014, Plaintiff's responsive memorandum to 

Claimant's Motion for Reconsideration (1140) is due no later than 

October 23, 2014, and Claimant's reply memorandum is due November 

6, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this :J.. day of October, 2014. 

Malcolm F. Marsh 

United States District Judge 

11 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 47 Filed 10/02/14 Page 11 of 11