Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-598-Y.
May 23, 2005
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On April 15, 2005, the United States filed an instrument entitled Motion to Dismiss and/or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a brief in support. Also, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the government provided the following: March 24, 2005, Declaration of Mia Toines; March 8, 2005, Affidavit of Judge James Wilson (with exhibit); April 4, 2005, Affidavit of Judge James Wilson (with exhibit); March 3, 2005, Declaration of John Hieronymus (with forty-two exhibits attached); a certified copy of the Stipulated Forfeiture and Judgment in case number S-6280 before the 213th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas; and certified copies of several documents from the government's prosecution of plaintiff Reyna in United States v. Andres Mares Reyna, No. 4:99-CR-260-E in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Andres Reyna Jr. has not filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, nor has he filed any controverting documents.
Plaintiff initiated this action with a motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which the Court, following Fifth Circuit precedent, deemed a civil suit seeking the equitable relief of the return of property and money. After review and consideration of the motion for summary judgment of the United States of America, and the facts and procedural circumstances of this case, this Court concludes that, with regard to Reyna's claims for return of motor vehicles, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the motion for summary judgment, and as stated in section 1 of the brief in support of the motion for summary judgment. Also, with regard to the challenge to the seizure of the two separate sums of U.S. currency, the Court concludes that Reyna is not entitled to relief for the reasons stated in the summary judgment motion and as stated in section 2 (a-c) of the brief in support of the motion. Furthermore, although Reyna's motion for relief in this case included a reference to a "civil rights complaint," the Court concludes Reyna is not entitled to monetary damages against the United States for the reasons stated in the summary judgment motion, and as stated in the brief in support at section 3.
A plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages from the United States under a motion under Rule 41(g), as such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 986 (5th Cir. 1998) (analyzing substantively same rule then denoted as Rule 41(e)). Although Pena counsels allowing a defendant to amend to state any separate Bivens claims, such leave was not warranted in this case, as any such claims would be barred by the statute of limitations, since the complained-of property and currency seizure took place more than four years before the filing of this suit. See Pena, 157 F.3d at 987 (noting that the statute of limitations on a Bivens claim asserted in Texas is two years) (citations omitted). The Court acknowledges that Reyna previously filed a motion seeking relief under Rule 41(e) that was construed as a civil complaint in Reyna v. United States, 4:02-CV-162-Y. That action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, and thus Reyna would not be entitled to any tolling based upon the pendency of that suit. Alternatively, even if he was so entitled, that case number 4:02-CV-162-Y was pending for less than five months, and tolling credit for that amount of time would not change the two-year bar to any Bivens claims arising from the property seizure and forfeiture events in late 1999 through August 2000.
It is therefore ORDERED that defendant United States's motion for summary judgment be, and is hereby, GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the alternative motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, RENDERED MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that plaintiff Andres Reyna Jr. take nothing on his claims against defendant United States of America, and that such claims be, and they are hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.