United States v. $16,761 in U.S. Currency

636 F.Supp.3d 574

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiffs, v. $16,761 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-00053-KDB-DCK

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

Signed October 20, 2022

J. Seth Johnson, Benjamin Bain-Creed, United States Attorney's Office, Charlotte, NC, for Plaintiffs.

ORDER

Kenneth D. Bell, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment and Claimant Jermaine Lydell Sanders' Motion to Stay. (Doc. Nos. 33, 37). Having considered the parties' briefs, exhibits, and oral argument on October 18, 2022, the Court will deny Sanders' Motion to Stay and grant the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2020, Mooresville Police Department ("MPD") officers encountered Sanders in the parking lot of a Springhill Suites in Mooresville, NC. Law enforcement smelled marijuana on both Sanders' person and from a Chevy Silverado. (Doc. No. 33-7, p.3). Officers found nothing illegal on Sanders and released him. Later, after being notified that Sanders was leaving the hotel, officers returned. After Officers arrived, the front desk clerk alerted them that Sanders had run outside and fled in a black passenger vehicle, leaving multiple items in the hotel lobby but taking one bag with him. Id.

MPD Officer Scott deployed K9 Hansel, a trained and certified narcotics detection canine, in an open-air sniff of the Chevrolet Silverado while it was parked in the hotel parking lot. K9 Hansel positively alerted to the odor of narcotics. (Doc. No. 33-9 ¶¶2, 4). K9 Hansel was also deployed on a lineup created from the items that Sanders left, and positively alerted to Sanders' items, including four shoe boxes which contained marijuana shake. Id. ¶5. MPD then searched the Silverado and found marijuana and $16,761.00 (the "Currency") in the center console of the vehicle. Id.; Doc. No. 33-11; Doc. No. 33-7, p.13. Sanders was not present at the time of the search or seizure. Doc. No. 33-8 at 74:23-75:4.

The Currency was packaged together in denominations of ninety-six $1 bills, fifty-three $5 bills, fifty-four $10 bills, six-hundred-eighty-three $20 bills, six $50 bills, and nineteen $100 bills. See Doc. 1, ¶ 33; Doc. No. 33-7, p.13. The Currency was placed in a blind lineup of brown paper bags, and K9 Hansel positively alerted to the bag containing the Currency. Doc. No. 33-9 ¶6.

The United States filed a verified complaint for the forfeiture of the Currency under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355 on March 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). The United States now moves for summary judgment arguing Sanders lacks standing to contest the forfeiture and even if he does, the United States has met its summary judgment burden of showing the Currency is subject to forfeiture. See Doc. No. 33. Along with opposing the United States' Motion, Sanders again asks for a stay¹ because he has petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing with this Court, that the actions taken by the North Carolina trial court before the federal adoption were in personam in nature. See Doc. No. 18; See State v. Sanders, 284 N.C.App. 170, 874 S.E.2d 642 (2022).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." United States v. 8.929 Acres of Land in Arlington Cnty., Virginia, 36 F.4th 240, 252 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)); see United States, f/u/b Mod. Mosaic, LTD v. Turner Constr. Co., et al., 946 F.3d 201, 206 (4th Cir. 2019). A factual dispute is considered genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th at 252. "A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id., (quoting Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013)).

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact through citations to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits in the record. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (when the nonmoving party "has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [his] claim with respect to which [he] has the burden of proof," summary judgment is warranted); United States ex rel. Gugenheim v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC, 36 F.4th 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2022). If the movant satisfies his initial burden to demonstrate "an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case," the burden shifts to the nonmovant to "present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th at 252, quoting Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532, 540 (4th Cir. 2015). "The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 302 (4th Cir. 2021). Rather, the nonmoving party must establish that a material fact is genuinely disputed by, inter alia, "citing to particular parts of the materials of record" and cannot rely only on "conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th at 252, quoting Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).

Still, summary judgment is not intended to be a substitute for a trial of the facts. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, "courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and refrain from weigh[ing] the evidence or mak[ing] credibility determinations." Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d 651, 659 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lee v. Town of Seaboard, 863 F.3d 323, 327 (4th Cir. 2017)). "Summary judgment cannot be granted merely because the court believes that the movant will prevail if the action is tried on the merits." Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2728 (3d ed.1998)).

In the end, the relevant inquiry on summary judgment is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 37)

Sanders has moved to stay this action based on 18 U.S.C. § 981(g) and Colorado River Abstention. Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted.

i. 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)

A forfeiture claimant can move for a stay under 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2), which provides that the Court must stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if it determines that: (a) the claimant is the subject of a related criminal investigation or case; (b) the claimant has standing to assert a claim in the civil forfeiture proceeding; and (c) continuation of the forfeiture proceeding will burden the right of the claimant against self-incrimination in the related investigation or case. See 18. U.S.C. § 981(g)(2)(A)-(C). A claimant must satisfy all three elements to be granted a stay. See United States v. $410,000.00 In U.S. Currency, 2007 WL 4557647, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2007).

The terms "related criminal case" and "related criminal investigation" are defined as "an actual prosecution or investigation in progress at the time at which the request for the stay, or any subsequent motion to lift the stay is made." 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(4). In determining whether a criminal case or investigation is "related" to a civil forfeiture proceeding, the court considers the degree of similarity between the parties, witnesses, facts, and circumstances involved in the two proceedings, without requiring an identity for any one or more factors. Id.

Here, there can be no "related" criminal case or investigation because there is no ongoing criminal case or investigation. First, the North Carolina criminal case has been dismissed. The presiding Iredell County district court judge denied the state's motion to continue when the charging officer was unavailable. See Doc. 33-5, p.11. Homeland Security's criminal investigation related to the forfeiture was also closed and the United States confirmed that, as of May 10, 2022, "there [was] no open criminal investigation of Jermaine Sanders related in any way to this forfeiture action with either the USAO or HSI in the Western District of North Carolina." See Doc. 33-6, p.2.²

Second, while Sanders is facing various state charges in Connecticut for possession of crack cocaine, heroin, and marijuana; possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute; and evading/reckless driving/engaging in a police pursuit arising from a March 31, 2018, incident, see Doc. 33-15, pp.6-12, there is no credible argument that those charges reflect a "related criminal case." Indeed, this incident occurred years before the North Carolina seizure in a different state hundreds of miles away. Moreover, although the United States references this Connecticut case in its complaint, that does not make it a related criminal case, but only potentially relevant evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Sanders' 2018 arrest on drug trafficking charges may be relevant to whether there is a nexus between the Currency and drug trafficking. In particular, Sanders' history of drug charges, intent, and modus...