United States v. Robert Ferro

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Robert Ferro

473 F. App'x 789

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2012

Docket11-55034

StatusUnpublished

This text of 473 F. App'x 789 (United States v. Robert Ferro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Robert Ferro, 473 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In district court, Appellant Robert Ferro failed timely to file a notice that he was a potential claimant with any “interest in such property.” 18 U.S.C. § 988(a)(2)(C)(ii). Instead, more than two years after the forfeiture complaint was filed, Robert Ferro twice moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process to him as a potential claimant. We DISMISS this appeal because Robert Ferro lacks standing to make any claim in this case.

“Article III standing must be determined as a threshold matter in every federal case. In a forfeiture action, this determination turns upon whether the claimant has a sufficient interest in the property to create a case or controversy.” United States v. Real Prop. Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). The ability to file a claim in a forfeiture action is governed by whether the claimant has an interest in the property under state law. Id.

Robert Ferro stated in a sworn declaration that “on or about May 2, 1992, I had conveyed in writing, ownership of all my possessions, including my collection of gold coins, firearms, and antiques. The gun collection included over 1500 firearms.” Under the California state law that undisputedly applies, Maria Ferro is the sole owner of the property and the only one who could have filed a claim in the forfeiture proceeding. See Cal. Fam.Code § 850. (“Married persons may by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration ... (a) transmute community property to separate property of either spouse.”). Robert has admitted, under penalty of perjury, that he has no sufficient interest to *790 make a claim on the property. He therefore has no standing, under Article III, to participate as a potential claimant in this case. It follows necessarily that he has no standing to file a motion to dismiss for failure to give him notice as a potential claimant in this case, since he is not a potential claimant in this case.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

In district court, Appellant Robert Ferro failed timely to file a notice that he was a potential claimant with any “interest in such property.” 18 U.S.C. § 988(a)(2)(C)(ii). Instead, more than two years after the forfeiture complaint was filed, Robert Ferro twice moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process to him as a potential claimant. We DISMISS this appeal because Robert Ferro lacks standing to make any claim in this case.

“Article III standing must be determined as a threshold matter in every federal case. In a forfeiture action, this determination turns upon whether the claimant has a sufficient interest in the property to create a case or controversy.” United States v. Real Prop. Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). The ability to file a claim in a forfeiture action is governed by whether the claimant has an interest in the property under state law. Id.

Robert Ferro stated in a sworn declaration that “on or about May 2, 1992, I had conveyed in writing, ownership of all my possessions, including my collection of gold coins, firearms, and antiques. The gun collection included over 1500 firearms.” Under the California state law that undisputedly applies, Maria Ferro is the sole owner of the property and the only one who could have filed a claim in the forfeiture proceeding. See Cal. Fam.Code § 850. (“Married persons may by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration ... (a) transmute community property to separate property of either spouse.”). Robert has admitted, under penalty of perjury, that he has no sufficient interest to *790 make a claim on the property. He therefore has no standing, under Article III, to participate as a potential claimant in this case. It follows necessarily that he has no standing to file a motion to dismiss for failure to give him notice as a potential claimant in this case, since he is not a potential claimant in this case.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 F. App'x 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-ferro-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack