David Calderin-Pascual challenged the forfeiture of a 25-foot Avanti center console boat after his brother Osvaldo pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy charges and agreed to forfeit the vessel under his plea agreement. The boat was subject to a preliminary forfeiture order entered in December 2023 following Osvaldo's conviction for participating in a conspiracy that began 'in or about May 2019,' according to court records.
The First Circuit found that David's pro se petition failed to meet statutory requirements but criticized the district court for ignoring his alternative request for leave to amend. As Chief Judge Barron wrote for the unanimous panel, 'the petition itself merely states that, at the time of the [boat's] seizure, David was the sole and rightful owner of [it]' but 'does not allege when he received title to the boat at all.' The court noted that to survive dismissal, David needed to show he acquired the boat before the 2019 conspiracy began.
The panel was particularly critical of David's supporting documentation, noting that 'the attachments to the petition, moreover, are all in Spanish and were submitted without translation.' Chief Judge Barron explained that under 48 U.S.C. § 864, federal courts are 'proscribed from considering' untranslated documents, making David's evidence unusable.
David had filed his initial petition pro se in February 2024, attaching what he described as a 'Boat Property Certificate, Boat Title and License, Trailer Title, [and] Engines Receipt.' After obtaining counsel, he filed a response including a document showing that someone named Martin Bresciani purchased the boat at auction in October 2015 and an 'illegible document' claiming to show title transfer to David in May 2017. U.S. District Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colón granted the government's motion to dismiss in August 2024.
The government had argued that while David's petition 'provides some information relating to the nature and extent of [David's] interest in the [boat],' it 'is silent as to the time and circumstances of his acquisition of his interest in the [boat].' The First Circuit agreed that the petition was inadequate but faulted the district court for failing to address David's amendment request.
The appeals court expressed particular concern about the district court's silence on the amendment issue, noting that 'the reasons for the denial of that request are not apparent here.' Chief Judge Barron wrote that the government had 'expressly argued' in its motion that 'either the petition should be dismissed or he should be directed to file an amended petition,' making the district court's failure to address amendment especially problematic.
The panel emphasized that district courts must consider pro se litigants' status and federal forfeiture law's liberal construction requirement. As the court explained, 'the District Court must take into account David's pro se status and 21 U.S.C. § 853's statutory requirement that its provisions be 'liberally construed.'' The ruling leaves open the possibility that David could successfully challenge the forfeiture if allowed to properly amend his petition with translated documents showing pre-2019 ownership.