Summary
The First Circuit reviewed the dismissal of David Calderin-Pascual’s third-party petition challenging the forfeiture of a boat connected to his brother’s federal convictions. The court held that the petition and untranslated or illegible attachments did not sufficiently allege the timing and circumstances of David’s acquisition, but vacated the denial and remanded because the district court had not addressed his request for leave to amend.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether David Calderin-Pascual's third-party forfeiture petition adequately alleged that his interest in the boat was acquired before the crime underlying the forfeiture.
- Whether the district court erred by dismissing the petition without addressing David's alternative request for leave to amend.
- Whether the First Circuit could consider untranslated or illegible documents submitted in support of the petition.
Holdings
- To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1)(A), a third-party forfeiture petition must allege that the claimant acquired an interest in the specific property before the crime that led to the forfeiture.
- The district court's unexplained denial of David's alternative request for leave to amend required vacatur and remand because the record did not disclose the basis for that denial.
- The court could not consider the untranslated Spanish documents submitted with the petition, and the later document was also unusable because it appeared to be in Spanish and was illegible.
Key quotations
“Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, it follows that the petition must allege that the third party acquired their interest in the property before the crime was committed.” (at 3)
“Thus, because "[t]he present record does not disclose what the [District Court's] basis was for the denial," we find it "necessary to remand so that [it] can explain and/or reconsider its decision."” (at 9)
Factual background
Osvaldo Calderin-Pascual pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy that began in or about May 2019 and agreed to forfeit his interest in a twenty-five-foot Avanti center-console boat. David Calderin-Pascual filed a third-party petition alleging under penalty of perjury that he was the boat's sole and rightful owner at the time of seizure, attaching documents in Spanish. In response to the government's motion to dismiss, David asserted that documents showed the boat had been transferred to him in 2017 and alternatively requested leave to amend, but the district court dismissed the petition without addressing that request.
Procedural history
Osvaldo Calderin-Pascual pleaded guilty to federal offenses and agreed to forfeit his interest in a boat. After the district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture, David Calderin-Pascual filed a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), asserting that he was the boat's owner. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss, denied David's petition, and later entered a final order of forfeiture. The First Circuit vacated the denial and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The district court must explain and/or reconsider its denial of David's request for leave to amend, taking into account his pro se status and 21 U.S.C. § 853(o)'s requirement that the statute be liberally construed.