Opinion
Civil No. 3:04-CV-0520-H.
June 14, 2004
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed April 2, 2004. Plaintiff did not file a Response despite this Court's Order that she do so. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
On November 18, 2003, United States District Judge John McBryde entered judgment in a criminal case against Plaintiff's husband, Frederick C. Miller, for one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (conducting a monetary transaction with criminally derived funds) and for one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (evading income tax). (D.s' App. at Ex. F.) In conjunction with the criminal case, the United States initiated a forfeiture proceeding against certain property ultimately valued at $952,105.84. (D.s' App. at 36.) On November 17, 2003, Plaintiff received written notice of the forfeiture proceeding and of her right to file a petition within thirty days to assert her legal interest in the property. (D.s' App. at Ex. D.) Plaintiff did not file such a petition. On February 18, 2004, Judge McBryde entered an Agreed Final Order Regarding Forfeiture, in which Judge McBryde specifically ordered that "[a]ll right, title, claim, and interest in and to the specific property items . . . of any and all persons or entities including [Plaintiff] is forfeited to the United States in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). . . ." (D.s' App. at 36, 39.)
The United States also sent a "follow-up" letter to Plaintiff by first class mail on November 17, 2003. (D.s' App. at 12-13.) In addition, the United States published notice of the forfeiture proceedings for three consecutive weeks in the Daily Commercial Record and in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. (D.s' App. at Ex. B, C.)
Plaintiff filed the instant case in the County Court at Law No. 2 in Dallas County, Texas, on January 28, 2004. Defendant removed the case to this Court on March 12, 2004, within thirty days of receiving notice of the case on February 11, 2004. Defendant now moves to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Plaintiff appears to seek two forms of relief in this case: (1) that the forfeited property be returned to her, and (2) that her husband's criminal case be dismissed. With respect to the forfeited property, it is clear that Plaintiff received actual, written notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that Plaintiff did not file the required petition to assert her legal interest in the property. (D.s' App. at Ex. D.) Thus, the Court concludes that the United States's notice to Plaintiff regarding the forfeiture proceeding complied with the requirements of due process. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002) (holding that, in determining whether notice comported with due process, a court looks to whether the notice was "`reasonably calculated under all the circumstances' to apprise [plaintiff] of the pendency of the . . . forfeiture"). With respect to her husband's criminal case, Plaintiff simply lacks standing to challenge his conviction or sentence. See McClure v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 2003) ("The standing doctrine protects final judgments [in criminal cases] from third-party collateral attacks.")
For all of the above reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's case is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.