Opinion
No. 1:05-cv-1521-SEB-VSS.
March 21, 2006
Entry Discussing Motion to Set Aside Declaration of Forfeiture
Certain items of Darryl McNeal's personal property were seized during a search at 7150 N. Lakeside Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 11, 1999. The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") commenced an administrative forfeiture action with respect to the seized property. Mr. McNeal was prosecuted in IP 99-131-CR-T/F and was convicted of a drug offense in that prosecution. McNeal challenged the forfeiture of the personal property in the criminal action, but the challenge was rejected. Judge Tinder explained in his ruling of December 23, 2003, that "[a]s long as the government gave adequate notice to the defendant in the civil forfeiture action, a deficiency not asserted by the defendant, the court is divested of jurisdiction to review the forfeiture action."
McNeal then filed the present lawsuit to set aside the administrative declaration of forfeiture. His request for that relief is denied, however, because the pleadings show that the United States did not fail to take reasonable steps to provide McNeal with notice of the administrative forfeiture action. McNeal makes no contention to the contrary. These steps met the requirements of due process. Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir. 2004). The foregoing shows that the administrative declarations of forfeiture made by the FBI on March 15, 2000, on April 20, 2005, and on May 25, 2000, are not subject to challenge by McNeal. Accordingly, McNeal's motion to set aside the declaration of forfeiture must be denied. The United States' unopposed motion to dismiss is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.