UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1763 (PLF)
)
$4,620 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )
)
Defendant in rem. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of plaintiff, the United
States of America, for a default judgment and final order of forfeiture against the defendant
property under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4) and Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The defendant property is $4,620.00 in United
States currency. Upon consideration of the government’s verified complaint, its pending motion,
the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will grant the
government’s motion for a default judgment and final order of forfeiture.1
Federal police agents seized the currency at issue on January 26, 2009, when
serving a search warrant for guns and drugs at the residence at 3711 22nd Street, Northeast, in
the District of Columbia. See Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8. The agents seized $3,000.00 from a cardboard
box under towels found at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom. Id. ¶ 10. They seized
1
Among the papers reviewed in connection with the pending motion include:
the United States’ verified complaint for forfeiture in rem (“Compl.”); and the United States’
motion for entry of a default judgment and for final order of forfeiture (“Mot.”).
another $1,620.00 from a vase on a shelf over the master bedroom door. Id. ¶ 11. The apparent
possessor of the money, Shelton Oliver Campbell, told police the money had come from the sale
of a Mazda automobile for $5,000.00. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Campbell said he did not know the name of
the “Spanish male” to whom he had sold the vehicle. Id. ¶ 18. When serving the search warrant,
police also seized cocaine and marijuana. Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Campbell has a history of arrests and
convictions for crimes involving illegal narcotics. Id. ¶¶ 20-26.
On September 17, 2009, the government commenced this action by filing a
verified complaint for forfeiture in rem. See Compl. ¶ 1. The Clerk of the Court issued a
warrant of arrest in rem, which was served on the defendant property on September 21, 2009.
See Mot. at 2. On September 18, 2009, the government sent copies of the complaint and warrant
of arrest in rem through the U.S. mails to Mr. Campbell at his personal address in Rockville,
Maryland, and to Mr. Campbell’s counsel at her office address in the District of Columbia.
See id. at 2-3. In addition, the government published notice of this action on its website,
www.forfeiture.gov, for 30 consecutive days, beginning on September 19, 2009. Id. at 3.
On October 25, 2009, through counsel, Mr. Campbell filed a claim to the
defendant property. After making his claim, however, Mr. Campbell failed to file an answer
within the 21-day window required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(b). No one else has filed a claim
or any other pleading in this case. On January 7, 2010, the government filed a motion to strike
Mr. Campbell’s claim and for entry of a default judgment and final order of forfeiture. Mr.
Campbell filed an opposition on January 20, 2010, accompanied by a motion for leave to file an
answer — his first, and only, attempt to file an answer. Six days later, the Court denied without
prejudice Mr. Campbell’s motion for leave to file an answer for failure to comply with Local
2
Civil Rule 7(m). Mr. Campbell never sought to renew the motion. On March 24, 2010, the
government filed a motion to treat as conceded its motion to strike and for entry of a default
judgment and final order of forfeiture. Mr. Campbell did not respond or make any other filing in
this case.
On August 6, 2010, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and
denying in part the government’s motion to strike Mr. Campbell’s claim and for entry of a
default judgment and final order of forfeiture. See Memorandum Op. at 4-5, Aug. 6, 2010;
see also Order at 1, Aug. 6, 2010. Specifically, the Court granted the government’s motion to
strike Mr. Campbell’s claim, see Memorandum Op. at 4-5, but the Court denied without
prejudice the government’s motion for default judgment because it was premature. Id. at 5.
With respect to the latter, the Court stated:
[T]he United States served a Warrant of Arrest on the
defendant currency on September 21, 2009. The government gave
direct notice of the complaint and warrant to the known potential
claimant, Shelton Campbell, on or about September 18, 2009.
Notice was mailed to Mr. Campbell directly, as well as to his
attorney, in compliance with Supplemental Rule G(4)(B). In
addition, the government gave notice of the action by publication
on its website, www.forfeiture.gov, for 30 consecutive days,
beginning on September 19, 2009, pursuant to Supplemental Rule
G(4)(a)(iv)(C). The Court therefore finds that sufficient notice was
given.
No other individual other than Mr. Campbell has filed any
pleading to challenge forfeiture of the defendant property, and the
time for filing a claim has expired. The Court has stricken Mr.
Campbell’s claim. There therefore are no claimants to the
defendant funds. The Court concludes that the government is
entitled to an entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore will direct the Clerk
of the Court to enter a default against Shelton Campbell. Because
Rule 55 requires entry of a default by the Clerk before a default
3
judgment may be entered, the government’s motion for default
judgment is premature. The Court therefore will deny the motion
without prejudice to refiling after the Clerk’s entry of a default.
Memorandum Op. at 5, Aug. 6, 2010 (internal citations omitted).
On August 9, 2010, the Clerk of the Court entered a default against Mr. Campbell
due to his failure to plead or otherwise defend a claim after process was fully issued.
Subsequently, on October 18, 2010, the government refiled its motion. Now that a default has
been entered by the Clerk, the Court concludes that the government is entitled to a default
judgment and final order of forfeiture.
The civil forfeiture statute provides that
[t]he following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States
and no property right shall exist in them: . . . . [a]ll 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.
21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The Court finds that the defendant property was used or intended to be
used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq. The
defendant property therefore is forfeitable to the government under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
Furthermore, the government provided sufficient notice of the seizure of the defendant property.
No individual other than Mr. Campbell filed any pleading to challenge the forfeiture of the
defendant property, and the time for filing a claim has expired. See SUPP . R. G(5)(a)(ii)(B). And
the Court has stricken Mr. Campbell’s claim — therefore, there are no claimants to the defendant
property.
4
Accordingly, the Court will grant the government’s motion for a default judgment
and final order of forfeiture [Dkt. No. 15]. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion
shall issue this same day.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
DATE: April 26, 2011 United States District Judge
5