Nichols v. U.S. Secret Service ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PATRICK NICHOLS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01106 (UNA)
)
U.S. SECRET SERVICE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se untitled pleading,
ECF No. 1, and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The court will
grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); id § 1915A(b)(1), mandating dismissal where a plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff has filed an untitled pleading, in contravention of Federal Rule 10(a) and D.C.
Local Rule 5.1(g). In that pleading, which the court will generously construe as a complaint, he
appears to allege that United States Secret Service seized more than $13,000 from him at Union
Station in the District of Columbia in July 2011, and that he is entitled to the return of those funds 1
1
The court notes that plaintiff’s previous lawsuits seeking the return of the seized funds–
under different legal authority––have also failed. See Nichols v. U.S. Secret Serv., No. 1:18-cv-
0606, 2020 WL 2571520, at *2 (D.D.C. May 21, 2020) (dismissing § 1983 claim for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and Takings Clause claim for failure to state a claim); Nichols v. United States,
No. 17-1847 C, 2018 WL 1940543, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 25, 2018) (dismissing Takings Clause
claim for lack of jurisdiction); Nichols v. U.S. Secret Serv., No. 22-cv-01141 (D.D.C. filed Apr.
25, 2022), at Dismissal Order, ECF No. 12, and Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 11 (collecting
plaintiff’s previous cases and dismissing complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction);
Nichols v. U.S. Secret Serv., No. 23-cv-00159 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 17, 2023), at Dismissal Order,
ECF No. 5, and Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 4 (collecting plaintiff’s previous cases and
dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim).
because criminal charges were never filed against him and/or were subsequently dismissed. He
does not cite to any legal authority, but his form pleading references 18 U.S.C. § 983 in a footnote.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Civil Asset
Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, authorizes the civil forfeiture of funds
traceable to an illegal drug transaction, id.; Lopez v. United States, 2006 WL 2788999, at *10
(D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2006), but “persons who might have a claim of ownership of the [seized] asset
must be given notice of their right to contest the forfeiture[.]” McKinney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
Drug Enforcement Admin., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2008); see 18 U.S.C. § 983(a). Under
certain conditions, if a person fails to receive such notice, they “may file a motion to set aside a
declaration of forfeiture[,]” 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), which plaintiff is, perhaps, trying to do here.
Plaintiff, however, has not alleged that he did not receive notice of a pending forfeiture in
accordance with the statutory requirements; instead, he generally alleges that he is entitled to the
return of his property. Therefore, he has failed to state a claim under the CAFRA.
Moreover, the fact that plaintiff was never criminally charged, or alternatively, that any
charges were dismissed, is irrelevant. When a defendant is acquitted, or charges were dismissed,
or even when charges are never brought or no arrest is made, the government may still pursue a
related civil forfeiture. See U.S. v. Property Ident. as 3120 Banneker Dr. N.E., Wash. D.C., 691
F. Supp. 497, 499–500 (D.D.C. 1988) (finding that “[i]n contrast to the criminal forfeiture laws,
where conviction is a prerequisite for forfeiture of the property . . . a property is subject to civil
forfeiture even if its owner is acquitted of—or never called to defend against—criminal charges.”)
(collecting cases); see also Martin, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 94, 99–100 (dismissing case after claimant
failed to bring a timely claim to contest the forfeiture of his funds, even though “[n]o arrest was
made, nor were any drugs found in connection with the search of” the claimant). The Supreme
Court has held that,
[f]irst, . . . it is absolutely clear that in rem civil forfeiture has not
historically been regarded as punishment . . . Second, there is no
requirement . . . that the Government demonstrate scienter in order to
establish that the property is subject to forfeiture; indeed, the property may
be subject to forfeiture even if no party files a claim to it and the
Government never shows any connection between the property and a
particular person.
U.S. v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 291–92 (1996).
As such, this matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim. An order consistent with this
memorandum opinion is issued separately.
Date: May 1, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge