Dusenbery v. U.S.

United States Supreme Court
534 U.S. 161 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause does not require that a prisoner actually receive notice of a property forfeiture. The government's notice obligation is satisfied if it employs a method reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the prisoner of the forfeiture, such as sending notice by certified mail to the correctional facility where the inmate is held.

Facts:

In April 1986, FBI officers arrested Larry Dean Dusenbery and seized various items from his residence, including $21,989 in cash.
Dusenbery pleaded guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
While Dusenbery was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Milan, Michigan, the FBI initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings for the seized cash.
The FBI sent notice of its intent to forfeit the cash via certified mail addressed to Dusenbery at FCI Milan.
Additional notices were sent to the address of his arrest and to the town where his mother lived, and a notice was published in a Cleveland newspaper for three consecutive weeks.
The FBI received no response to any of the notices within the allotted time.
As a result of not receiving a response, the FBI declared the cash administratively forfeited to the government.
Dusenbery later claimed that he never received the certified letter sent to him at the prison.

Procedural Posture:

Nearly five years after the forfeiture, Larry Dean Dusenbery filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio seeking the return of his property.
The District Court, the court of first instance, denied the motion on the grounds that it should have been filed as a civil action.
Dusenbery appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment, holding that the court should have construed the motion as a civil complaint challenging the notice on due process grounds, and remanded the case.
On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, concluding the notice satisfied due process.
Dusenbery, as appellant, appealed again to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's ruling in favor of the United States, the appellee.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the government's method of sending a forfeiture notice via certified mail to a federal correctional facility where a prisoner is incarcerated, which has its own internal procedures for mail delivery to inmates, satisfy the notice requirement of the Due Process Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes. The government's method of sending a forfeiture notice by certified mail to the correctional facility where the prisoner is incarcerated is reasonably calculated to provide notice and therefore satisfies the Due Process Clause. The controlling standard, established in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., requires that the method of notice be 'reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.' The Court explicitly rejects a requirement of 'actual notice,' as this would be impractical and create uncertainty in property titles. The FBI sent the notice via certified mail to the prison, and the prison had an established procedure for logging and distributing such mail to inmates. This method was a reasonable means of attempting to inform Dusenbery, and the Due Process Clause does not require 'heroic efforts' or the best possible procedure, only a constitutionally adequate one. The fact that the Bureau of Prisons later improved its mail delivery procedures does not render the prior system retroactively unconstitutional.

Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg

No. The government's notice was constitutionally deficient because the government failed to show that the internal prison mail delivery system was reasonably reliable. While sending mail to the prison gates is one step, the critical inquiry is the procedure for getting the mail from the mailroom into the prisoner's hands, a process entirely within the government's control. The record contained no evidence about the reliability of this internal procedure at the time of the forfeiture. Because the government has total control over a prisoner, it can and should employ feasible, low-cost alternatives that are 'substantially less likely to bring home notice,' such as requiring an inmate's signature upon receipt—a practice the Bureau of Prisons has since adopted. By condoning this lax procedure, the Court diminishes the fundamental due process safeguard of notice and the opportunity to be heard.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of the Mullane 'reasonably calculated' notice standard in the specific context of incarcerated individuals. It firmly rejects an 'actual notice' requirement, meaning the government's constitutional duty is to use a reasonable method of sending notice, not to guarantee its receipt. This places the practical burden on prisoners challenging a forfeiture to demonstrate that a prison's mail system is so fundamentally flawed that notice sent to it is not 'reasonably calculated' to reach them. The ruling also insulates government agencies from due process challenges based on subsequent improvements to their procedures, preventing past actions from being judged by current, higher standards.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dusenbery v. U.S. (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature