# United States v. Approximately $13,205.54 in U.S. Currency

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · September 30, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254958

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 30, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254958

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00007-MR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
APPROXIMATELY $13,205.54 IN U.S. )
CURRENCY SEIZED FROM RAHKIM )
FRANKLIN ON AUGUST 21, 2018 IN )
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH )
CAROLINA, )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Claimants’ Motion to Strike
Certain Paragraphs of First Amended Complaint. [Doc. 23].
I. BACKGROUND
According to the Amended Complaint, on August 21, 2018, an officer
with the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office stopped Rahkim Franklin
(“Franklin”) and searched his vehicle. [Doc. 17 at ¶¶ 8-12]. During the
search, the officer discovered a concealed firearm, marijuana shake, and
$13,205.54 (the “Defendant Currency”). [Id. at ¶13-15]. The officer arrested
Franklin for possession of a concealed firearm and seized the Defendant
Currency. [Id. at ¶ 19-20]. While the arrest was occurring, Shelly Medrano
(“Medrano”) arrived at the scene and claimed that the Defendant Currency

is hers. [Id. at ¶ 16].
The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) initiated an
administrative forfeiture action following the seizure of the Defendant

Currency. [Id. at ¶ 25]. On January 7, 2019, the Government filed its original
Complaint alleging that the Defendant Currency is subject to forfeiture
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). [Doc. 1].
On February 7, 2019, Franklin and Medrano (collectively “Claimants”)

filed a Verified “Joint Claim of Ownership,” asserting that the Defendant
Currency belongs to both of them “and is money they obtained through
employment and personal savings.” [Doc. 5]. On February 21, 2019,

Claimants filed an Answer to the Government’s Complaint, which included a
motion to strike certain paragraphs of the Complaint. [Doc. 7].
On May 21, 2019, the Claimants filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(f)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike paragraphs 21(a), 21(b), 22,

23, and 24 of the Government’s Complaint as immaterial, impertinent, and
scandalous. [Docs. 15, 16]. In response to the Claimant’s motion, on June
3, 2019, the Government filed an Amended Complaint that corrected certain

errors and revised certain paragraphs that were in the original Complaint.
[Doc. 17]. The Court denied the Claimants’ motion to strike as moot on June
4, 2019. [Text-only Order entered June 4, 2019].

On June 19, 2019, the Claimants filed their Answer to the Amended
Complaint, which included a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the
Amended Complaint. [Doc. 19]. On August 12, 2019, the Claimants again

filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to strike paragraphs 21(a), 21(b), 22, 23, and 24 of the Government’s
Complaint as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous. [Docs. 23, 24].
Those paragraphs read as follows:

21. Franklin has been implicated in numerous reports
and incidents, including but not limited to incidents
involving narcotics. Reports and incidents include the
following:

a. On February 4, 2015, law enforcement visited the
residence at 121 Hill Street Forest City, North
Carolina, in order to arrest Iykiemie Franklin, Rakhim
[sic] Franklin’s brother, on an outstanding warrant for
Simple Possession of Schedule II Controlled
Substance in violation of North Carolina General
Statute § 90-95 (d)(2). Although Iykiemie Franklin
was not at the residence, law enforcement did locate
Rakhim [sic] Franklin and one other individual exiting
a laundry room from which an overwhelming smell of
marijuana was emanating. One of the individuals
advised that the two had just smoked marijuana.
Although Franklin and the individual declined
consent to search the room, the owner of the
residence consented to a search whereby law
enforcement ultimately found two large bags of
marijuana in the laundry room.
b. In January 2017, a concerned parent delivered a
backpack that contained three vacuum sealed bags
of marijuana to the Forest City Police Department.
The parent advised that the parent had found the
backpack while cleaning the child’s room in the
parent’s house. The parent relayed the parent’s
suspicion that Franklin and his family kept the child
high on marijuana and paid small amounts of money
to the child so that the child would work for Franklin.
The total amount of marijuana in the bags was 470
grams in the first bag, 469 grams in the second bag,
and 484 grams in the third bag.

22. Although Franklin purportedly operates a
detailing business, law enforcement has not
identified any information to suggest that Franklin
serves customers or generates revenue, much less
substantial revenue sufficient to justify his
possession of a large amount of currency, via this
business, nor has law enforcement identified
customers at the purported business location.

23. Franklin has previously been charged in North
Carolina with, among other things, Felony
Possession of Cocaine in violation of N.C.G.S. § 90-
95(d)(2); Simple Possession of Marijuana in violation
of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(d)(4); and Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia in violation of N.C.G.S. § 90-
113.22(a).

24. Franklin has previous convictions, including for
Simple Possession of Marijuana in violation of
N.C.G.S. § 90-95(d)(4).

The Government has filed an opposition to the Claimants’ motion.
[Doc. 25].
Having been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(f) states that the Court “may strike from a pleading an

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with
disfavor because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and

because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.” Waste
Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). “A motion to strike places a ‘sizable burden
on the movant,’ and would typically require a showing that denial of the

motion would prejudice the movant.” Miller v. Rutherford County, No. 1:08-
cv-441, 2008 WL 5392057, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2008) (citations
omitted). Such motion will be denied unless the “challenged allegations have

no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the
controversy and may cause some form of significant prejudice to one or more
of the parties.” Scherer v. Steel Creek Prop. Owner Ass’n, No. 1:13-cv-121,
2014 WL 813824, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2014) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION
A. Paragraphs 21(a) and 21(b)
Paragraphs 21(a) and 21(b) allege that Franklin previously had some

connection to two drug-related incidents. [Doc. 17 at ¶ 21]. The Claimants,
however, argue that paragraphs 21(a) and 21(b) “have no other purpose than
to prejudice the Court and the trier of fact” and are “immaterial.” [Doc. 24 at

5-6]. The Government counters that “[p]revious incidents that concern Mr.
Franklin’s involvement with drugs bear directly on the subject matter of this
litigation, and indeed, support the Government’s case.” [Id.]. The

Government argues that it is “[t]he Government’s theory in this case that the
Defendant Currency seized from Mr. Franklin constitutes drug proceeds, or
was money used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the drug
trafficking laws.” [Doc. 25 at 9].

“A claimant's record of drug activity is a highly probative factor in the
forfeiture calculus.” United States v. $67,220.00 in U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d
280, 286 (6th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). As such, it is possible that a

person’s “history of involvement with illegal drugs,” United States v.
Currency, U.S., $147,900.00, 450 F. App'x 261, 264 (4th Cir. 2011), or their
“contemporaneous affiliation with known drug traffickers,” United States v.
Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars & No Cents in U.S. Currency, 258

F.3d 215, 224 (3d Cir. 2001), can serve as evidence in a forfeiture
proceeding.
The allegations contained in paragraphs 21(a) and 21(b) are not

“immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” because they put the Claimants on
notice of evidentiary avenues in which the Government may seek to connect
Franklin to drug activities. As such, the Claimants’ motion to strike

paragraphs 21(a) and 21(b) will be denied.
B. Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22 alleges that law enforcement has not found information

related to Franklin’s detailing business that suggests that Franklin has any
legitimate income. [Doc. 17 at ¶ 22]. The Claimants argue that paragraph
22 consists of “innuendo and insult” and represents “Orwellian allegations”
that are “immaterial and impertinent” and made “for one purpose: to create

prejudice.” [Doc. 24 at 6]. The Government counters that “allegations
involving Mr. Franklin’s lack of legitimate income bear a direct and logical
connection to the facts of this case.” [Doc. 25 at 11].

A person’s reported income and work history can help determine if
currency implicated in a forfeiture proceeding is connected to drug activities.
See United States v. $174,206.00, 320 F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir. 2003); see
also Currency, U.S., $147,900.00, 450 F. App'x at 264.

The allegations contained in paragraph 22 are not “immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous” because they put the Claimants on notice of
evidence the Government may adduce to show that the Defendant Currency
is connected to drug activities rather than Franklin’s legitimate business. As
such, the Claimants’ motion to strike paragraph 22 will be denied.

C. Paragraphs 23 and 24
Paragraph 23 lists Franklin’s prior drug charges and paragraph 24 lists
a single conviction for marijuana possession. [Doc. 17 at ¶ 23, 24]. The

Claimants argue that those paragraphs fail to mention that “most [of the]
charges were dismissed” and that this Court has previously ruled that the
inclusion of a criminal record “is immaterial, impertinent and prejudicial.”
[Doc. 24 at 6-7] (citing E.E.O.C. v. Bo-Cherry, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00210-

MOC, 2013 WL 2317724, at *2 (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2013). The Government
counters that the criminal charges are facts in their own right and that Bo-
Cherry and this case are incomparable. [Doc. 25 at 12].

The Complaint alleges facts regarding drug charges that have been
brought against Franklin. The Government did not have to include that some
of those charges were dismissed because the complaint is not required to
include every fact that the Claimants deem relevant or contextual. Moreover,

the Claimants have failed to show that denial of their motion would “cause
some form of significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action.”
Scherer, 2014 WL 813824, at *1.
The Claimants further argue that Bo-Cherry requires criminal records
to be stricken from complaints as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous.

[Doc. 24 at 6]. Bo-Cherry, however said that “[a] pleading should only be
stricken when the pleading bears no relationship to the controversy.” Bo-
Cherry, Inc., 2013 WL 2317724 at *1 (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953)). Bo-Cherry was
an employment discrimination case, where the criminal record was irrelevant
to the issues involved. 2013 WL 2317724, at *2.
This case, however, involves civil asset forfeiture related to drug

activities. While it may be questionable as to whether evidence of prior
convictions may be admissible at trial, there is a possibility that they will be.
See Currency, U.S., $147,900.00, 450 F. App'x at 264 (evidence of a

person’s “history of involvement with illegal drugs” is relevant in a forfeiture
proceeding). Therefore, the allegations contained in paragraph 24 are not
“immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” because they connect Franklin to
drug activities and will not be stricken.

The allegations in paragraph 23 are more problematic. They simply
set forth that Franklin has previously been accused of drug activities. It is
unlikely that the mere fact of his arrest would be relevant to prove his

participation in drug activities, or that such evidence would be admissible at
trial. To the extent, however, that the allegations in paragraph 23 are merely
a short-hand manner of giving notice of the facts that may have prompted
such charges, this paragraph is not immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.
Therefore, this paragraph will likewise not be stricken. In the future,
however, the Government’s counsel is encouraged not to plead the basis for
forfeiture in such an imprecise manner.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Claimants have failed to meet their high burden to show that denial
of their Rule 12(f) motion would prejudice them or that the allegations
contained in the Amended Complaint are “immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Accordingly, Motion to Strike Certain
Paragraphs of First Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] will be denied.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Claimants’ Motion to Strike
Certain Paragraphs of First Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] is DENIED.
ITIS SO ORDERED. Signed: September 30, 2019
A Reidinger ie Re
United States District Judge Aas

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254958. Public record. Not legal advice.