United States of America v. $3,093.25 in U.S. Currency

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:25-cv-00332 (AMN/PJE)

$3,093.25 in U.S. Currency,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

United States Attorney for the NICHOLAS C.E. WALTER, ESQ. Northern District of New York Assistant United States Attorney 445 Broadway – Room 218 Albany, New York 12207

100 South Clinton Street JEFFREY D. BROWN, ESQ. Syracuse, New York 13261 Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHAHID SMITH 24-B-1965 Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, New York 14902 Claimant pro se

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:

ORDER This matter coming before the Court on the Government’s motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Court, having reviewed such motion hereby: ORDERS that the Government’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.!” IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 22, 2026 Ouwel l }an RAL Albany, New York Anne M. Nardacci U.S. District Judge

' The Government also requests the entry of a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2). See Dkt. No. 18-1 at 3-4. A certificate of reasonable cause is properly issued “only ‘upon the entry of a judgment for the claimant.’” United States v. Ross, 161 F.4th 100, 126 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2) and citing United States v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes, More or Less, 448 F.3d 1168, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing 28 U.S.C. § 2465 as requiring “judicial determination that the government wrongly seized property for forfeiture”’)). Accordingly, given that no judgment has been entered in the Claimant’s favor, the Government’s request for an entry of a certificate of reasonable cause is denied. ? Claimant’s letter motions requesting the appointment of counsel and assistance with the return of his funds are denied as moot. See Dkt. Nos. 21-24.