Opinion
Case No. 2:04-CV-654 PGC.
December 13, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. (File Entry #7.) Plaintiff's complaint challenges the validity of a lien filed by Defendant against Plaintiff's property. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In the alternative, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because the disputed lien is valid under both federal and state law. Having carefully considered the parties' memoranda and oral arguments, the court recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted because Plaintiff's action is barred by the statute of limitations.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was convicted in the Northern District of Florida of conspiring to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana aboard a vessel in United States waters with intent to distribute, and illegally attempting to import marijuana into the United States. See United States v. Prows, 888 F.2d 100, 100 (11th Cir. 1989). In August 1985, Plaintiff was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, fined $125,000, and placed on two special parole terms of two years each. See id. In September 1994, Defendant, the United States, filed a Notice of Lien for Fine, Penalty or Restitution Imposed Pursuant to the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984 in the Salt Lake County, Utah Recorder's Office. (File Entry #8, Exhibit A.)In February 2004, an Indictment was filed with this court charging Plaintiff, among other things, with making false statements to a financial institution regarding Defendant's lien and judgment. (File Entry #1, United States v. Prows, Case No. 2:04-CR-102 BSJ.) The indictment charged that in June 1998, Plaintiff sought to purchase a home located in Salt Lake City. The indictment further charged that when the title company questioned Plaintiff about Defendant's lien, Plaintiff filed an affidavit falsely claiming that the judgment was against a person other than himself. Further, the indictment charged that in connection with obtaining financing for such purchase and two subsequent finances, Plaintiff also submitted documents to financial institutions falsely representing that there were no outstanding judgments or liens against him or his property. (File Entry #1, Case No. 2:04-CR-102 BSJ.) During the criminal proceeding, Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to challenge the validity of Defendant's lien. (File Entries #49, 61, Case No. 2:04-CR-102 BSJ.) The court denied Plaintiff's motions, refusing to rule on Plaintiff's challenge to the validity of Defendant's lien. (File Entry #69, Case No. 2:04-CR-102 BSJ.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed this pro se quiet title action in Utah state court on approximately June 21, 2004, seeking to void the lien Defendant recorded in 1994. Defendant removed this action to federal court on July 16, 2004, and the case was assigned to United States District Judge Paul G. Cassell. (File Entry #1.) On August 3, 2004, Judge Cassell referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (File Entry #5.)
It is not absolutely clear which day Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court, but it appears that it was on June 21, 2004.
Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and a supporting memorandum on August 13, 2004. (File Entries #7, 8.) Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to that motion on August 17, 2004. (File Entry #9.) Defendant then filed a reply to Plaintiff's memorandum on August 31, 2004. (File Entry #10.) Plaintiff filed another memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss on September 22, 2004. (File Entry #12.) On October 7, 2004, the court held oral arguments on Defendant's motion to dismiss. (File Entry #15; Official Transcript lodged in file.)
On October 1, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's improperly filed second memorandum. (File Entry #13.) The court denied Defendant's motion to strike during oral arguments on October 7, 2004, reasoning that because Plaintiff is acting pro se, the court had reviewed the memorandum and would consider it. (File Entry #15; Official Transcript of October 7, 2004 Oral Arguments Regarding Motion to Dismiss, at 4.)
ANALYSIS
The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit without its consent, and the terms of its consent when granted define the court's jurisdiction. See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990). Statutes of limitations include the terms of consent, and a party's failure to sue the United States within the period of limitations deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the action. See Urabazo v. United States, 947 F.2d 955, 1991 WL 213406 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 (1992); see also United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 841 (1986) ("In particular, `[w]hen waiver legislation contains a statute of limitations, the limitations provision constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity.'" (Citation omitted.)) Because such statutes of limitations function as jurisdictional conditions, they must be strictly construed. See Urabazo, 1991 WL 213406, at *1.
In this case, Plaintiff brought his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2410, which, among other things, allows suits to be brought against the United States to quiet title to property on which the United States "has or claims a mortgage or other lien." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2410(a) (1994). There is no dispute that the catch-all six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) applies to actions brought under section 2410, and therefore applies to this action.
Defendant's lien covered all present and future real property interests of Plaintiff and was created pursuant to the 1985 judgment entered against Plaintiff. Defendant's lien arose when notice of the lien was filed in the Salt Lake County Recorder's office in September 1994. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3613 (2000); 28 U.S.C.A. § 3201 (1994). Thus, pursuant to the statute of limitations, Plaintiff had until September 2000 — six years from September 1994 — to challenge the validity of the lien. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(a) (1994). However, Plaintiff did not file suit challenging the lien until he filed his quiet title action in June 2004. As a result, Plaintiff's action is barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
Section 2401(a) provides in relevant part that "every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(a) (1994).
Plaintiff argues that his action could not have accrued in September 1994 when the lien was recorded because he did not even own the real property at issue until 1998, and therefore could not have filed a quiet title action until 1998. However, Plaintiff misunderstands the scope of the lien filed by Defendant. That lien, which was created pursuant to the judgment entered against Plaintiff in 1985, purports to apply to all property and rights of property belonging to Plaintiff until the judgment entered against Plaintiff is satisfied. The lien was not specific to the real property currently owned by Plaintiff. Even though Plaintiff apparently did not own real property in 1994 when the lien was filed, Plaintiff still could have filed suit challenging the validity of the lien at that time.
The court notes, based on the criminal case before Judge Jenkins, that Plaintiff had actual notice of Defendant's lien by at least 1998, when the lien was brought to his attention when he was obtaining financing to purchase the real property he now owns. Thus, at a minimum, Plaintiff had actual notice of the lien approximately two years before the statute of limitations expired.
Because the court concludes that Plaintiff's action is barred by the statute of limitations, the court also concludes that it lacks jurisdiction. As a result, this action must be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, the court concludes that Plaintiff's action is barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (File Entry #7) BE GRANTED because the court lacks jurisdiction.