United States of America v. 878 County Road 1490 Rush Springs Oklahoma 73082 et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v. Case No. CIV-23-424-SLP
878 COUNTY ROAD 1490, RUSH
SPRINGS, OKLAHOMA 73082, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial
Summary Judgment with Brief in Support [Doc. No. 127] with respect to Defendant Real
Property located at 878 County Road 1490 Rush Springs, Oklahoma 73082, Defendant No.
1. Claims have been filed by Shan Lin as an “actual owner (innocent spouse)” and by Jing
Jiang as an “actual owner.” See Doc. Nos. 21 and 76, respectively. Claimant Jing Jang,
represented by counsel, has filed a Response [Doc. No. 128] to Plaintiff’s Motion and states
that the Motion is unopposed. Claimant Shan Lin, also represented by counsel, has filed a
Response [Doc. No. 130] and similarly states that the Motion is unopposed. Although the
Motion is unopposed, the Court must analyze whether Plaintiff, as the moving party “has
met its initial burden of production under Rule 56 and demonstrated that no genuine issue
of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Issa v. Comp
USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1194-
95 (10th Cir. 2002)). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 135 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
I. Introduction
This civil forfeiture action arises from an investigation led by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics (OBN) into a marijuana
trafficking organization operating throughout Oklahoma. Claimant Shan Lin and Claimant
Jing Jiang filed verified claims, asserting an interest in certain real property identified in
the forfeiture action as 878 County Road 1490 Rush Springs, Oklahoma 73082, Defendant
No. 1 (the Real Property). The Real Property at issue is alleged to have been used for
various marijuana growing operations. The marijuana was transported to locations outside
Oklahoma for further distribution in violation of both state and federal law.
II. Governing Standard
Summary judgment is proper “if ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Walkingstick Dixon v.
Oklahoma ex rel. Reg’l Univ. Sys. of Okla. Bd. of Regents, 125 F.4th 1321, 1333 (10th Cir.
2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “The dispute about a material fact is genuine if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (brackets and ellipsis
omitted)). In reviewing the summary judgment record, the district court “view[s] facts in
the light most favorable to the non-movants, resolving all factual disputes and reasonable
inferences in their favor.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 135 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
III. Undisputed Material Facts1
In January 2023, as part of the FBI’s investigation of a marijuana trafficking
organization, law enforcement discovered hundreds of marijuana plants at various stages
of growth at 878 County Road 1490, Rush Springs, Oklahoma 73082 (the Real Property).
Based on law enforcement’s observations of an individual, Brandon Ye (Ye), and
following an inspection of the Real Property by state inspectors in February 2023, it
appeared that Ye was transporting marijuana plants in black trash bags from the Real
Property to a residence in Oklahoma City. In May 2023, law enforcement executed a
search warrant of the Real Property but at the time of the execution of the search, there was
no ongoing marijuana operation. It is the belief of law enforcement that the operations
were shut down by the trafficking organization following the inspection of the Real
Property by state inspectors.
On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed this forfeiture action. See Doc. No. 1. Two days
later, On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lis Pendens with the Grady County
Clerk advising that the Real Property was subject to this civil forfeiture action. See Doc.
No. 127-5.
In April 2024, Claimant Shan Lin asserted a claim as an “actual owner (innocent
spouse)” of the Real Property. See Doc. No. 21. In May 2025, Claimant Jing Jiang filed
1 Because Claimants do not contest Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court takes Plaintiff’s statement of facts
– as supported by record evidence – as undisputed and admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)&(3);
see also LCvR 56.1(e) (“All material facts set forth in the statement of material facts of the movant
may be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted
by the nonmovant using the procedures set forth in this rule.”).
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 135 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
a claim as the “actual owner” and asserted that she acquired the Real Property “from Shan
Lin in or about May 2024.” See Doc. No. 76.
IV. Analysis
Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of the Subject Property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7),
for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. To prevail, Plaintiff must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(c)(1); see United States v. 2121 Celeste Rd. SW, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 1269 (D.N.M.
2016).
Real property is subject to forfeiture if it is “used, or intended to be used, in any
manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation” of the federal
drug laws punishable by more than one year imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7).
Manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent to manufacture or
distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, regardless of their weights, is prohibited and is
punishable by a maximum penalty of forty years’ incarceration and a fine of $5,000,000.
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii).
While Section 881(a)(7) refers to property used in violation of federal law, conduct
that could support federal charges is sufficient to make real property forfeitable under
Section 881(a)(7) even if no federal charges were ever filed. See United States v. Wagoner
Cnty. Real Est., 278 F.3d 1091, 1100-01 (10th Cir. 2002) (forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C.
§ 881(a)(7) where claimants were not charged with federal offense); United States v. One
Parcel of Real Est. Located at 7715 Betsy Bruce Lane Summerfield, N.C., 906 F.2d 110,
111-12 (4th Cir. 1990) (“In civil forfeiture cases, property is subject to forfeiture even if
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 135 Filed 04/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
its owner is acquitted of – or never called to defend against – criminal charges.” (quotation
omitted)).
To establish that real property was “used to commit or facilitate” an illegal drug
offense, Plaintiff must show that there was a substantial connection between the property
and the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3). The connection between the property and the
criminal activity must be more than fortuitous. United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate
Commonly Known as 916 Douglas Avenue, 903 F.2d 490, 494 (7th Cir.1990). The burden
then shifts to the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the factual
predicates for forfeiture have not been met or by showing that the claimant is an innocent
owner. United States v. One Parcel Prop. Located at Lot 85, Country Ridge, a Subdivision
in City of Lenexa, Johnson Cnty., Kan., 894 F. Supp. 397, 403 (D. Kan. 1995); see also 18
U.S.C. § 983.
Here, Claimants do not dispute that when law enforcement inspected the subject
property in February 2023, they witnessed a commercial grow operation with hundreds of
plants in various stages of growth. Claimants further do not dispute that such evidence
demonstrates a substantial connection between the real property and the offense. Cf.
United States v. 6941 Morrison Drive, Denver, Colo., 6 F.Supp.3d 1176, 1179-80 (D. Colo.
2013) (finding house subject to forfeiture where claimant did not dispute that “he was
cultivating over fifty marijuana plants in the basement of defendant property with the intent
to distribute”); United States v. 22. Real Property Located at 23965 East Wagontrail Ave.,
Aurora, Colo., No. 19-CV-257-WJM-STV, 2023 WL 8851060 at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 28,
2023) (substantial connection existed between subject property and offense where
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 135 Filed 04/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
claimants did not dispute that over one hundred marijuana plants were being cultivated in
the basement of the property with intent to distribute).
As set forth, Claimants do not contest Plaintiff’s Motion. Necessarily, therefore,
they have not sufficiently made any showing to support any affirmative defense based on
innocent-owner allegations. Indeed, Claimant Jing Jiang affirmatively acknowledges that
the filing of the lis pendens provided notice and precludes any such defense. See Doc. No.
128 at 1-2. Moreover, counsel for Claimant Shan Lin concedes that “any claim by SHAN
LIN was dissolved upon the transfer of ownership and JIN JIANG’s verified answer and
claim[.]” See Doc. No. 130 at 3, ¶¶ 8-10 (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
in its favor as to the claimed interests of Claimants Shan Lin and/or Jin Jiang in the Real
Property.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary
Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment with Brief in Support [Doc. No. 127] is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00424-SLP Document 135 Filed 04/13/26 Page 6 of 6