Opinion ID: 43721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foster’s EAJA claim

Text: A plaintiff seeking to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Article III of the United States Constitution requires “the party who invokes the court's authority to ‘show that [s]he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,’ and that the injury ‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)(citations omitted). “It is well established that in order to contest a forfeiture, a claimant first must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the property to give him Article III standing; otherwise, there is no ‘case or controversy,’ in the constitutional sense, 6 capable of adjudication in the federal courts.” United States. v. $38,000.00 Dollars in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d 1538, 1543 (11th Cir. 1987)(civil forfeiture case). The record reveals that Foster withdrew her claim from the ancillary proceeding and therefore is not able to demonstrate an interest in any property that was the subject of the forfeiture count in Pease’s criminal case. Moreover, she was not a party in the appeal of the ancillary proceeding in Pease II. Accordingly, she lacks standing to move for attorney’s fees and costs.