Filed Date: Sept. 23, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case challenging Alabama police's practice of seizing property under civil asset forfeiture law from individuals not charged with a crime. On September 23, 2019, an Alabama resident whose car was seized following her son’s arrest filed this putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Plaintiff sued the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, the District Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit of Alabama, and the City of Satsuma under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, plaintiff sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. The class sought to represent individuals who were not charged with a crime, but nevertheless had their property seized and subjected to civil forfeiture proceedings. Plaintiff claimed that the State had a policy of indefinitely seizing property and allowing the City to hold it during civil forfeiture actions. Plaintiff further claimed that following the seizure of property, defendants failed to provide a timely post-deprivation hearing, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants charged excessive fines, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s final claim was a conspiracy charge against all defendants, alleging that defendants colluded to violate her rights.
The case was assigned to Judge Terry F. Moorer. On January 3, 2020, the State filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the City filed a motion to dismiss three days later. The State's primary argument included the Younger abstention, a Supreme Court doctrine that set out the criteria for when federal courts should abstain from hearing state court cases. The State argued that the criteria were met in this case, and the District Court should therefore abstain from hearing the case. The State also argued that Plaintiff had failed to state any valid constitutional claims. The State also asserted claim and issue preclusion, based on a case from the Northern District of Alabama that had similar facts (Sutton v Leesburg). The City adopted the State's grounds in its motion to dismiss and argued that the Younger abstention also applied to the conspiracy claim.
On September 29, 2021, the court granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss. 2021 WL 4477900. The court found that the Younger abstention did not apply, because there was no potential for federal interference when the state proceedings had been resolved. The court also found that there was no claim or issue preclusion, as Plaintiff was not a party to the Sutton case, and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in that proceeding.
The court then turned to the constitutional claims, beginning with the Fourth Amendment claim. The court determined that the initial seizure was supported by probable cause. and that plaintiff’s challenge focused on the lack of a prompt post-seizure probable cause hearing. The court found that Alabama state law provided an opportunity for plaintiff to execute a bond to reclaim her vehicle during the proceedings, and her failure to do so undermined her Fourth Amendment claim. The court emphasized that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to states in this context, which the plaintiff had already conceded. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, the court applied the test used by courts to determine whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. The court found that plaintiff’s failure to take action, such as posting a bond or advancing the forfeiture case, contributed to the delay in proceedings. The court concluded that her due process claims failed as a matter of law under the test. Moving to the Eighth Amendment claim, the court addressed plaintiff's argument that the retention of her vehicle during civil forfeiture proceedings constituted an excessive fine. The court noted the lack of legal basis for this claim and emphasized that plaintiff’s success in the forfeiture case rendered the Eighth Amendment claim moot. Finally, the court considered plaintiff's conspiracy claim against the City. The court rejected the conspiracy claim since it was dependent on the success of the direct constitutional claims against the State, which the court had already determined to be without merit.
Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit a month later, on October 29, 2021. The appeal was dismissed in part and affirmed in part on July 11, 2022. 2022 WL 2663643. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated plaintiff’s appeal with the appeal in Sutton. The court concluded that the claims for injunctive relief were moot due to the return of the vehicles. The remaining monetary damages claims were dismissed, affirming the district courts' decisions.
Plaintiff appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court on December 20, 2022. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (143 S.Ct. 1746) and oral argument was held on October 30, 2023. The Court's conservative majority seemed sympathetic to Alabama officials, with some justices signaling that they viewed Alabama's existing legal process as adequate, suggesting that property owners could jumpstart the process by promptly asking courts to issue summary judgment in their favor, or otherwise rule on an expedited basis. Liberal justices criticized what they deemed "abuses of the forfeiture system,” citing incentives that the police have to seize property.
On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision, ruling 6-3 to affirm the Eleventh Circuit's judgment. 601 U.S. 377. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, held that the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not mandate a separate preliminary hearing to determine whether law enforcement may retain seized personal property pending the forfeiture hearing. The Court distinguished between the due process requirements for seizing real property and personal property. It reasoned that under its precedent in United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, the government must conduct a pre-deprivation hearing before seizing real property connected to criminal conduct through civil forfeiture. Regarding personal property, however, the Court stated that its precedent in United States v. $8,850 and United States v. Von Neumann established that a timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing satisfied due process. The Court also emphasized that historical practices dating back to the Founding Era did not support a requirement for preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture cases.
Justice Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately safeguard the due process rights of property owners, particularly innocent ones. She argued that the Court’s “categorical rule that due process never requires a retention hearing also cannot be squared with the context-specific analysis that this Court’s due process doctrine requires.” 601 U.S. at 413. She concluded that the Court should have decided only which due process test governs whether a retention hearing is required, giving lower courts flexibility to apply the appropriate test in the myriad of civil forfeiture schemes across the country.
As of November 2024, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Simran Takhar (1/1/2024)
Nicole Brigstock (11/30/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16232902/parties/culley-v-marshall/
Clark, Brian Michael (Alabama)
Lightner, Hansel Eli (Alabama)
Chynoweth, Brad Alan (Alabama)
Gaillard, Thomas O. (Alabama)
Howell, Laura Elizabeth (Alabama)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16232902/culley-v-marshall/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 1:36 a.m.
State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 23, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An Alabama resident whose car was seized following her son’s arrest on behalf of a putative class of individuals whose property had been seized, subjected to civil forfeiture proceedings, and who were not charged with a crime.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Attorney General of Alabama, State
District Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit of Alabama, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: