Chunn v. Amtrak
916 F.3d 204
2d Cir.2019Background
- Chunn was sleeping in the Amtrak waiting area at Penn Station, was awakened, and arrested for disorderly conduct, trespass, and resisting arrest after an altercation with Amtrak police.
- During a search incident to arrest, Amtrak officers found $10,400 on Chunn and seized the cash.
- Amtrak's Criminal Investigation Division and an Amtrak officer assigned to an Amtrak‑DEA task force investigated and the DEA decided to seize the money for possible federal forfeiture; Amtrak transferred the cash to the DEA and gave Chunn a receipt.
- Chunn sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process) and for conversion under New York law; he later dismissed claims against the DEA and its agents.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Amtrak and denied Chunn leave to add the Amtrak officer who transferred the money; Chunn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amtrak's transfer of seized cash to DEA without a pre‑transfer hearing violated due process | Chunn: transfer deprived him of property without notice or opportunity to be heard | Amtrak: federal post‑seizure forfeiture procedures satisfy due process; Amtrak may transfer to DEA | Court: No due process violation because post‑seizure federal forfeiture procedures satisfy state actor obligations |
| Whether Amtrak's transfer constituted conversion under New York law | Chunn: turnover to DEA was an unlawful disposition amounting to conversion | Amtrak: seizure was lawful incident to arrest; no demand made; transfer to DEA lawful and authorized | Court: No conversion; possession and transfer were lawful so no unlawful disposition |
| Whether Amtrak can be sued under § 1983 (assumed but not decided) | Chunn: Amtrak is liable as state actor | Amtrak: argued against liability or that procedures sufficed | Court: Assumed arguendo Amtrak amenable to suit but granted summary judgment on merits |
| Whether amendment to add Sergeant Patterson would be permitted | Chunn: sought to add Patterson who turned over the money | Amtrak: amendment would be futile for same reasons summary judgment was proper | Court: Denied leave to amend as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (notice and opportunity to be heard requirement; postal notice under forfeiture statute sufficient)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process requires balancing of interests and flexible procedures)
- Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (post‑deprivation judicial process can satisfy due process)
- Madewell v. Downs, 68 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 1995) (post‑seizure federal forfeiture procedures satisfy due process for state transfer to federal authorities)
- Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp. Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (conversion requires wrongful possession or unlawful disposition)
- Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2014) (de novo review of denial of amendment based on futility)
- Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2006) (amendment may be denied for futility)
- Panther Partners, Inc. v. Ikanos Commc'ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (amendment is futile if it does not cure deficiencies)
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned)