USA v. MAGALLANEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM
)
JULIANN MAGALLANEZ, 	) 	-01
)
Defendant. 	)
)
)
)
SHANDI REICHENBAUGH, 	)
)
Claimant. 	)
Order on Motion to Strike Claim and for Summary Judgment
Defendant Juliann 	Magallanez pleaded guilty to Possession 	with Intent to
Distribute 50 Grams or More of Actual Methamphetamine, Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm by a Convicted Felon, and Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of a Drug
Trafficking Crime. (J. 1, ECF No. 47.) The Court sentenced Magallanez to a total of
180 months in prison and ordered that her interest in two firearms involved in the
offenses 	be 	forfeited 	to 	the 	United 	States. 	(Id. 	at 	2, 	7.) 	Claimant 	Shandi
Reichenbaugh asserts that she is the owner of these firearms and seeks their return.
(Notice, ECF No. 54.) 	The United States moves for summary judgment on the
grounds that Reichenbaugh failed to comply with 21 U.S.C. § 853's requirements for
Case 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM Document 58 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
asserting claims on property and failed to respond to discovery requests.1 	(Mot.
Strike & Summ. J., ECF No. 55.)
I. 	Background
A grand jury charged Magallanez with Possession with Intent to Distribute 50
Grams or More of Actual Methamphetamine, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a
Convicted Felon, and Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking
Crime. (Indictment, ECF No. 1.) This indictment included a forfeiture allegation in
which the United States sought forfeiture of $2,610 U.S. dollars, a Taurus .38 caliber
revolver with the serial number 1S26723, a Taurus 9mm handgun with the serial
number 1GA56042, and ammunition. (Id. at 4–5.) On March 12, 2024, Magallanez
pleaded guilty to the offenses alleged in the indictment. 	(J. 1, ECF No. 47.) 	The
Court 	ordered 	that 	Magallanez 	forfeit 	the 	two 	firearms 	and 	all 	ammunition,
(collectively, "subject property"). 	(Id. at 7.) 	The United States published notice to
potential claimants with legal interests in the subject property online from June 12,
2024, to July 11, 2024. (Decl. Publication, ECF No. 55-1.)
On September 15, 2024, Reichenbaugh submitted a claim for the subject property.
(Pet., ECF No. 54-1.) She claims that she is an innocent owner of the firearms, that
they were taken while a friend was babysitting for her, and that she has since lost
1 The United States' motion is titled Motion to Strike Claim and for Summary Judgment, but the only
relief requested in the motion is summary judgment. 	The motion's title and the supporting brief
suggest that the Court also strike Reichenbaugh's claim, (Br. 2, ECF No. 56), but the Court may not
strike claims in ancillary proceedings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2, and this is not
requested in the motion itself. See United States v. Silnes, No. 1:16-CR-00251-TWP-MJD-13, 2024 WL
3676763, at *4 n.1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2024).
Case 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM Document 58 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
contact with that friend. 	(Id. at 5.) 	She also claims that her bill of sale was boxed
with the firearms and was taken along with them. 	(Id.) 	The United States asked
Reichenbaugh for further documentation on September 26, 2024, and sent discovery
requests to multiple physical and email addresses associated with her on March 20,
2025. 	(See Br. 4–6, ECF No. 56.) 	Reichenbaugh did not respond to these requests
and has not responded to the instant Motion.
II. 	Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 853(n) governs third party interests in criminal forfeitures. A claimant
asserting an interest in forfeited property must petition the court for a hearing. 	28
U.S.C. § 853(n)(2). 	The petition "shall set forth the nature and extent of the
petitioner's right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the
petitioner's acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, any additional
facts supporting the petitioner's claim, and the relief sought." 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3).
If a petition does not "allege . . . all elements necessary for recovery, including those
relating to standing, the court may dismiss the petition without providing a hearing."
United States v. Furando, 40 F.4th 567, 577 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v.
BCCA Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., 919 F. Supp. 31, 36 (D.D.C. 1996)).
The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she either
has some legal right in the property or is a bona fide purchaser for value. 21 U.S.C.
§ 853(n)(6). 	"Property interests are created and defined by state law." 	Butner v.
United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979). In Indiana, "ownership of personal property is
determined by reference to the indicia such as title, possession, and control." United
Case 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM Document 58 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
States v. Bowser, 834 F.3d 780, 784 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Rhoades v. State, 70 N.E.2d
27, 29 (Ind. 1946)).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) describes the ancillary proceeding the
Court must hold when a third party asserts an interest in property to be forfeited.
The Court may grant summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
after discovery. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(B).
A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary
because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing a
motion for summary judgment, the Court reviews the record and draws all reasonable
inferences from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 	Khungar v.
Access Cmty. Health Network, 985 F.3d 565, 572–73 (7th Cir. 2021). The Court cannot
weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment—those
tasks are left to the factfinder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014).
Moreover, the Court need only consider the materials cited by the parties. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(3). 	A party seeking summary judgment must inform the district court
of the basis for its motion and identify the record evidence it believes demonstrates
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986). 	Failure to properly support a fact in opposition to a movant's factual
assertion can result in the movant's fact being considered undisputed, and potentially
in the grant of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Evidence, not speculation,
is needed to survive summary judgment. Khungar, 985 F.3d at 573.
Case 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM Document 58 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The nonmoving party in a summary judgment motion must "respond to the
moving party's properly supported motion by identifying specific, admissible evidence
showing that there is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial" rather than simply
resting on the pleadings. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017)
(citing Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099, 1104 (7th Cir. 2008)).
More colloquially, the non-moving party must "put up or shut up." Id.
III. 	Discussion
Reichenbaugh did not respond to the Motion and thus has put nothing up to resist
summary judgment. Her failure to respond to the Motion makes summary judgment
appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3).
Even if documents showing title, possession, or control existed, Reichenbaugh's
failure to respond to discovery requests is itself a ground for dismissal. 	Fed. R. Civ
P. 37(d)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); see United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451,
457–58 (6th Cir. 2002).
Besides not responding to the Motion or discovery requests, Reichenbaugh's
threadbare assertion that she owned the two guns does not meet the standards
required of such petitions. 	Reichenbaugh attests that she acquired two guns at an
unspecified time, in an unspecified manner, and that they disappeared, along with
the bill of sale, when an unnamed friend was babysitting on an unknown date. (Pet.
5, ECF No. 54-1.) These assertions are insufficient to support her claim since they do
Case 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM Document 58 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
not "set forth . . . the time and circumstances of the petitioner's acquisition of the
right, title, or interest in the property" under Indiana law. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3).
Because Reichenbaugh has not put forth any evidence that shows there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to her ownership of the subject property, the United
States is entitled to summary judgment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the United States' Motion to Strike Claim and for
Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 55), is granted to the extent the United States is
entitled to summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Date:
Distribution:
William H. Dazey, Jr.
INDIANA FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDERS
bill.dazey@fd.org
Patrick Gibson
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
patrick.gibson@usdoj.gov
Kelly Rota
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
kelly.rota@usdoj.gov
12/31/2025
Case 2:23-cr-00006-JRS-CMM Document 58 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>