United States v. $25,411.84 in United States Currency

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

United States of America, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) $25,411.84 in United States Currency ) Case No. 24-1224-KHV-GEB More or less, ) ) Defendant, ) ) Roger L. Moss ) Movant. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Movant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 9). After review of Movant’s Motion (ECF No. 9) and Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 15), the Court DENIES Movant’s Motion (ECF No. 9) without prejudice as premature. I. Background This is a civil forfeiture action. The United States represents that the matter regards the proceeds of distributed narcotics and is brought to disgorge those proceeds.1 On January 6, 2025, District Judge Vratil issued the Warrant of Arrest In Rem for the relevant proceeds. On February 24, 2025, the Movant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and the instant Motion for Appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9). The Plaintiff responded to the Motion on March 10, 2025 (ECF No. 15) and the Movant did not file a subsequent reply. It is also

1 ECF No. 15 at 1. important to note the Movant has yet to respond to the Forfeiture Notice and his deadline for doing so was March 21, 2025 (ECF No. 6). To date, the Movant has not filed a claim in the action. Yet, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is fully briefed and ready for

determination. II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 9) Movant seeks the appointment of counsel for this civil forfeiture matter relating to alleged proceeds from his past criminal matter.2 Movant asserts because he is in the U.S. Penitentiary, his access to the legal knowledge necessary to litigate this issue is limited,

and he lacks the funds to afford an attorney for himself.3 Plaintiff responds there is no right to counsel in civil forfeiture proceedings,4 and even if a limited circumstance existed to appoint counsel, Movant’s motion is premature where it fails to first establish standing to contest the forfeiture before seeking counsel.5 The Court finds Movant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 9) is premature

where it fails to first establish standing under the civil forfeiture statute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 provides for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” The Court holds the inherent power to control the disposition of causes on its’ docket in the interest of judicial economy of time and effort.6 The first requirement for the

2 ECF No. 9 at 1. 3 Id. at 1-2. 4 U.S. v. Deninno, 103 F.3d 82, 86 (10th Cir. 1996). 5 ECF No. 15 at 3-4. 6 Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866, 879 (1998); see also Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser Internat'l, 2019 WL 13072873, at *2 (D. Kan. July 9, 2019); Universal Premium Acceptance Corp. v. Oxford Bank & Trust, No. 02–2448–KHV, 2002 WL 31898217, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 10, 2002) (citing Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1963)). Court to consider under 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(1) for appointment of counsel in civil forfeiture proceedings is “the person’s standing to contest the forfeiture.” Here, the Movant has yet to establish standing to contest the forfeiture by responding to the Forfeiture Notice and

stating a claim. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, the Movant ought to establish standing to contest the forfeiture before the issue of representation can be determined. The Court will not attempt to construe Movant’s standing prior to the statement of a claim or resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8), nor is it proper to do so in the instant motion. Thus, Movant’s Motion (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice as

premature. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated March 28, 2025 at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge