Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
U.S. v. $422,268 in U.S. Currency
During a drug trafficking investigation, Colorado state troopers found $422,268 in Guillermo Valdez’s truck and seized it. The government filed this action seeking forfeiture of the money. Valdez filed a claim contesting forfeiture but then disappeared, filing nothing for months and failing to appear for court proceedings. After several attempts to allow Valdez to pursue his claim, the district court struck the claim and ultimately entered judgment for the government. Valdez appealed. According to the opinion his opening brief failed to address the district court’s decision to strike his claim. That amounts to a waiver of any challenge to the decision, the opinion noted. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
According to the government’s verified complaint, investigators suspected Valdez and another man had delivered cocaine to a buyer near Denver and received cash for the drugs. Investigators later worked with Colorado state troopers to pull over Valdez’s truck. The troopers searched the truck and found a total of $422,268 — some of it wrapped in cellophane and electrical tape and the rest of it in vacuum-sealed bags, the opinion noted. The government sought forfeiture of the money, alleging it had been furnished in exchange for a controlled substance.
Valdez contested the forfeiture in a letter he wrote from a county jail. He asserted the money was his “retirement.” About seven weeks later, he sent another letter from jail contesting the forfeiture.
The magistrate judge entered a minute order stating Valdez’s concerns would be addressed at an upcoming status conference. The minute order, mailed to Valdez at the jail, informed him how to appear by phone at the status conference. But Valdez didn’t appear. The magistrate judge rescheduled the status conference and ordered the courtroom minutes to be mailed to Valdez at an additional address provided by the government. Valdez didn’t appear at the rescheduled conference either.
Having heard nothing from Valdez for more than two months, the magistrate judge entered an order directing Valdez to appear by phone and show cause why his claim shouldn’t be dismissed. The order cited, among other rules, a local rule requiring unrepresented litigants to give notice of an address change “not later than five days after the change” — D. Colo. Civ. R. 5.1(c). The order also directed Valdez to update his contact information and warned his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of his claim. The court sent the order both to the jail that had housed Valdez and to the additional address the government had provided. But Valdez neither updated his address nor appeared at the show-cause hearing.
The magistrate judge recommended the district court strike Valdez’s claim for his failure to prosecute it, his failure to appear and his failure to comply with court orders. The recommendation noted Valdez had failed to appear at three court proceedings, neither the court nor the government had any way to contact him and “the resolution of his claim” couldn’t “progress without his participation.” The district court adopted the recommendation, struck Valdez’s claim and later entered judgment granting forfeiture to the government.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denied Valdez’s motion to return his “personal asset” of $422,268 and granted his motion to proceed on appeal without prepaying costs or fees.