IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$101,020.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-207-MAC-CLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. #8)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the undersigned 

magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1); E. D. TEX. LOCAL R. CV-72. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 

Judgment. (Doc. #8.) After review, the undersigned recommends granting the motion. 

I. Background

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff, the United States of America (“Government”) filed a verified 

complaint for civil forfeiture of the following defendant property seized during a traffic stop on 

December 14, 2022, involving David Sanchez (“Sanchez”): $101,020.00. (Doc. #1.) According 

to the complaint, during a traffic stop conducted by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office

(“JCSO”), Sanchez provided false information about his travels. (Doc. #1 at 2.) Consent to search 

was requested but denied. A police canine then conducted an open-air sniff and it was positive for 

narcotics on the vehicle. (Doc. #1 at 3.) The JCSO officer then conducted a probable cause search 

of the vehicle. As a result of the search, JCSO seized cash that is the subject of this civil forfeiture 

Case 1:23-cv-00207-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 03/08/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

70
2

complaint. (Id.) JCSO located a vacuum sealer, a roll of vacuum bags, a large vacuum sealed bag 

containing bundles of US currency held together with small black rubber bands, air fresheners all 

inside a duffle bag on the back floorboard of the vehicle. They also located hotel receipts for hotels 

in Suffolk Va. (Id.) The complaint alleges that the Drug Trafficking Organizations uses couriers 

to transport illegal narcotics and that based on the conflicting travel itinerary and how the currency 

was hidden and packaged, the currency is drug proceeds. (Id. at 4.) 

Accordingly, the complaint alleges that the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

An Order for Warrant of Arrest in rem was entered on June 6, 2023 (doc. #3), and the 

property was arrested pursuant to a Warrant of Arrest issued by the Clerk. (Doc. #4.) The 

Government sent a copy of the Complaint for Forfeiture and the Notice of Complaint for forfeiture 

to potential claimants David Sanchez and Estephani Kimberly Cardena to their last known 

addresses by regular and certified mail as well as to Mr. Sanchez’ attorney. (Doc. #8.) The process 

receipt does not reveal successful delivery of the certified mail to Sanchez. (Doc. #8-1.) 

Successful service was made on Cardenas and Sanchez’s attorney. (Doc. #8-1.) Additionally, 

pursuant to Supplemental Rule for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions 

G(4)(a)(iv)(C), the Government posted a Notice of Civil Forfeiture at www.forfeiture.gov for at 

least thirty consecutive days beginning on June 14, 2023, and ending on July 13, 2023. (Doc. #5-

1.) 

The Government filed the pending Motion for Default Judgment (doc. #8) on October 24, 

2023. The Government asserts that the potential claimants, Sanchez and Cardenas, have failed to 

plead or otherwise defend against this action as required by law. (Doc. #8 at ¶7.) Therefore, the 

Government requests that the court enter a judgment and forfeiture as to all claimants or potential 

Case 1:23-cv-00207-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

71
3

claimants pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. Legal Standard

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

or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the 

party’s default.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). After a defendant has defaulted, judgment shall be entered 

upon affidavit of the amount due if the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be 

made certain by computation. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b). The plaintiff must file an affidavit stating 

whether the defendant is in military service before the court can issue a default judgment. 50 

U.S.C. § 3931(b)(1).1

Default judgments “are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted to 

by courts only in extreme situations.” Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766,767 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Sun 

Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead and Savings Ass’n., 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989)). The 

plaintiff “is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right, even where the defendant is 

technically in default.” Settlement Funding, LLC v. TransAmerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., 555 

F.3d 422, 424 (5th Cir. 2009). Rather, the court must determine: “(1) whether default judgment is 

procedurally warranted; (2) whether the Government’s Complaint sufficiently sets forth facts 

establishing that it is entitled to relief; and (3) what form of relief, if any, the Government should 

receive.” United States v. Giles, 538 F. Supp. 2d 990, 993 (W.D. Tex. 2008). After a default 

judgment, the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true. U.S. for Use of M-Co 

Constr., Inc. v. Shipco Gen., Inc., 814 F.2d 1011, 1014 (5th Cir. 1987).

1 The undersigned finds that this statute does not apply in this case, as the statute addresses “defendants” rather than 

“claimants,” and the undersigned is not aware of any cases holding that this statute applies to servicemembers who 

are potential claimants, rather than defendants.

Case 1:23-cv-00207-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 03/08/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

72
4

III. Discussion

The court must address both the procedural and substantive standards to warrant the default 

judgment.

A. Procedural Standard

The court considers the six Lindsey factors to satisfy the procedural standard to warrant 

entry of a default judgment: (1) whether there are material fact issues; (2) whether there has been 

substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default are clearly established; (4) whether 

default was caused by a good faith mistake or excusable neglect; (5) harshness; and (6) whether 

the court would feel obligated to set aside a default on the defendant’s motion. Lindsey v. Prive 

Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Here, the Lindsey factors have been met in favor of default judgment. The owner of the 

property has not made an appearance. A court may enter a default judgment when a party has 

failed to plead or otherwise defend. FED. R. CIV. P. 55. Pursuant to Supplemental Rule for 

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(4)(a)(iv)(C), the Government 

posted the Notice of Civil Forfeiture at www.forfeiture.gov for at least thirty consecutive days 

beginning on June 14, 2023. (Docs. #5-1, #8 at 3.) The Notice required any claimant to the 

property to file a claim with the court within sixty days from the first date of publication of the 

Notice, and to serve and file an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure within twenty-one days after the filing of the claim, as provided by 

Supplemental Rule of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions 

(G)(5). In addition to notice by publication, the Government sent a copy of the Complaint for 

Forfeiture and Notice of Complaint for Forfeiture by regular and certified mail to the potential 

claimants. (Doc. #8 at 3.) While the certified mail was not successfully delivered to Sanchez, the 

Case 1:23-cv-00207-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 03/08/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

73
5

Government asserts that the notice was also sent by regular mail and that it was provided to his 

attorney. (Doc. #8, at 3.) 

B. Substantive Standard

Default judgment is also substantively warranted here. The well-pleaded allegations in the 

complaint establish that the property constitutes proceeds that are traceable to violations of 21 

U.S.C. § 841. (Doc. #1 at ¶¶1-8.) The property is thus subject to forfeiture to the United States 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). As a result, the Government’s Motion for Default Judgment 

should be granted, and the court should enter a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2). 

IV. Recommendation

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends GRANTING the Government’s 

Motion for Default Judgment (doc. #8). The court should issue a default judgment, holding that 

Defendant Property $101,020.00 is forfeited to the United States with all right, title, or interest 

vesting in the United States. Any persons or entities that could claim any right, title, or interest in 

Defendant Property are divested of any right, title, or interest that they could claim. 

V. Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedCase 1:23-cv-00207-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 03/08/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

74
6

to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 8th day of March, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00207-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 03/08/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

75