Gregory Accardi and Holly Accardi, Claimants-Appellants
Docket: 97-4145
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; August 19, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Claimants Gregory and Holly Accardi appealed the forfeiture of their property located at 47 West 644 Route 38, Maple Park, Illinois, arguing that the seizure violated their due process rights under the principles established in *United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property*, which requires an adversarial hearing before seizing real property for forfeiture. The Accardis also contended that the forfeiture amounted to disproportionate punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
The background details reveal that on September 13, 1992, Illinois State Police discovered marijuana plants on the Accardis' property during aerial surveillance, leading to a search that uncovered 45 live plants and over 500 grams of dried marijuana, alongside firearms. The U.S. Attorney initiated forfeiture proceedings on December 3, 1992, and a warrant for seizure was granted shortly thereafter. Following the Supreme Court's decision in *Good*, the Accardis sought to dismiss the forfeiture action, but the district court denied this motion, citing precedent indicating that dismissal is not the appropriate remedy for a *Good* violation.
The district court later granted summary judgment in favor of the government and rejected a motion from the Accardis for an Eighth Amendment proportionality hearing due to their failure to raise the issue timely. The court ultimately issued a final decree of forfeiture on October 16, 1997.
In discussing the remedy for a *Good* violation, the court noted that while the Supreme Court did not specify the appropriate remedy for a lack of pre-seizure hearing, previous rulings established that an illegal seizure does not preclude forfeiture. Instead, the government owes compensation for profits lost by the claimant during the period of illegal seizure. The appeal court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, reinforcing that the established principles regarding forfeiture and illegal seizure remained intact.
The Accardis contend that the forfeiture of their family farm constitutes a disproportionate punishment, violating the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. However, the district court ruled that the Accardis waived their proportionality claim by not addressing it in response to the government’s motion for summary judgment. The Accardis’ subsequent motion for a proportionality hearing was deemed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which applies to substantive motions filed within ten days of judgment. Although their motion was filed eleven days after the judgment, it was considered timely by excluding weekends from the calculation. The court reviews denials of Rule 59 motions for abuse of discretion and emphasizes that parties cannot introduce new evidence or arguments that could have been presented before judgment. The Accardis suggested a "bifurcated" process for addressing forfeiture and Eighth Amendment issues but provided no supporting authority for this approach. They also argued that proportionality is a factual issue unsuitable for summary judgment, neglecting the purpose of summary judgment to resolve cases without genuine factual disputes. Since the Accardis failed to raise their proportionality argument before judgment, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider it afterward. Ultimately, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, as the Accardis raised their Eighth Amendment claims too late for consideration.
