Motion to Dismiss a Civil Asset Forfeiture Complaint
In a civil asset forfeiture case, the Claimant might file a judicial claim and motion to dismiss the complaint, instead of filing an answer and asserting affirmative defenses.
The motion to dismiss might address:
- Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
- Motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds
- Motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction
- Motion to dismiss due to lack of venue
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
In a civil forfeiture action arising under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), the government might seek forfeiture of property it claims was either money furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, proceeds from the sale of a controlled substance, or money used or intended to be used to facilitate narcotics trafficking.
After being served with Government’s complaint, the Claimant might move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the government’s complaint fails to show probable cause for the seizure.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all well pled factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from these facts in favor of the plaintiff. Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1429 (7th Cir. 1996).
In order to have a claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) the moving party must meet a high standard. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not it merits. For this reason, the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim “unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957).
In order to withstand a motion to dismiss a complaint must allege facts sufficiently setting forth the essential elements of the cause of action. Gray v. County of Dane, 854 F.2d 179, 182 (7th Cir. 1988). As a general rule, “mere vagueness or lack of detail does not constitute sufficient grounds for a motion to dismiss.” Strauss v. City of Chicago, 760 F.2d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 1985).
A complaint for forfeiture in rem under § 881(a), however, is subject to the particularity requirement of Rule (E)(2)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Supplemental Rules). 21 U.S.C. § 881(b). Supplemental Rule (E)(2)(a) provides:
Complaint. In actions to which this rule is applicable the complaint shall state the circumstances from which the claim arises with such particularity that the defendant or claimant will be able, without moving for a more definite statement, to commence an investigation of the facts and to frame a responsive pleading.
Courts have agreed that Rule (E)(2)(a) requires more specificity than the simple notice pleading which is required in ordinary civil cases under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. $ 39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210, 1216 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1986).
The requirement for particularity is intended to ensure that a forfeiture complaint apprises potential claimants of the circumstances which support the government’s seizure of property. United States v. $ 15,100 in United States Currency, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7157, No. 93- C-6800, 1994 WL 240516, at *2 (N.D.Ill. May 31, 1994).
By apprising potential claimants of such circumstances, the forfeiture complaint enables claimants to commence an investigation of the facts and to respond with more than a general denial to the averments in the complaint. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 921 F.2d 370, 375 (1st Cir. 1990).
Does the particularity requirement define the standard for evaluating the sufficiency of a forfeiture complaint on a motion to dismiss?
In United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 157 (3d Cir. 2003), the court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
In $ 15,100, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7157, 1994 WL 240516, at *2, the court held that the particularity requirement of Supplemental Rule (E)(2)(a) is satisfied only if the government alleges sufficient to support a probable cause finding.
In United States v. South Side Finance, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 791, 795 (N.D.Ill. 1991), the court found that the particularity requirement and the government’s obligation to demonstrate the existence of probable cause are analytically distinct tests, each of which the government must pass in order to withstand a motion to dismiss.
In United States v. 10652 South Laramie, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2967, No. 89- C-8064, 1990 WL 37230, at *4 (N.D.Ill. March 16, 1990), the court held that a motion to dismiss a civil forfeiture complaint is governed exclusively by Rule (E)(2)(a) which requires that the government plead “some supporting facts” showing a connection between the seized property and drug activity but not necessarily that the government allege facts sufficient to show probable cause.
