Jalloh v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALPHA MIJAU JALLOH, 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-2243
:
Plaintiff 	: 	(Judge Neary)
:
v. 	:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
Defendant 	:
MEMORANDUM
This matter comes before the court upon the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, wherein Judge Schwab recommends
the court dismiss plaintiff Alpha Mijau Jalloh’s pro se complaint (Doc. 1) without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 18). Jalloh filed timely
objections, (Doc. 19), and the United States filed a response, (Doc. 20). Timely
objections entitles Jalloh to de novo review of the contested portions of the R&R, see
E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)), while the court reviews the uncontested portions for “reasoned
consideration,” see id. at 100 (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d
Cir. 1987)).
In this case, Jalloh seeks the return of $107,195.47 which the United States
had seized from him, claiming the funds related to a criminal enterprise. (Doc. 1 at
ECF 2). He filed a petition for remission for the funds, (id.), but that petition was
denied because the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings determined Jalloh
failed to prove the funds were legally obtained, (id. at ECF 16-19). In his complaint,
Case 1:24-cv-02243-KMN Document 21 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 4

Jalloh argued his funds should be returned because the United States did not
provide sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing. (Id. at ECF 3).
Unfortunately for Jalloh, “judicial review does not extend to the merits of a
remission or mitigation ruling.” Curry v. United States, No. 22-2594, 2023 WL
6890082, at *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) (nonprecedential) (citing United States v.
McGlory, 202 F.3d 664, 670 (3d Cir. 2000)). Rather, a court can only set aside a civil
forfeiture if a person did not receive proper notice. 18 U.S.C. 983 (e)(1). Jalloh does
not provide any facts from which this court can conclude notice was improper. Put
more clearly, Jalloh’s original complaint does not mention notice at all; therefore,
his original complaint must be dismissed.
In his objections, Jalloh argues for the first time that he did not receive
proper notice. (Doc. 19 at ECF 2). Because his original complaint is the operative
pleading and the vital allegations regarding lack of notice are absent from his
complaint, these objections must be overruled. Still, Judge Schwab recommended
Jalloh be allowed to file an amended complaint and Jalloh has offered a potential
amended complaint. (Doc. 19-1).
As an initial matter, Jalloh’s proposed amended complaint does not meet
federal pleading standards. It asserts he “did not receive clear and timely written
notice, at his actual residential mailing address, explaining how to timely file a
claim.” (Id. at ECF 3). This is a bald legal conclusion not entitled to the presumption
of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). Jalloh himself attached some
correspondence to his original complaint. (Doc. 1 at ECF 5-19). He does not explain
Case 1:24-cv-02243-KMN Document 21 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 4

why he was allegedly unable to receive other documents or the steps he took to
inquire about the status of his case.
In any event, Jalloh would not be able to state a claim or invoke this court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. A court can only set aside a civil forfeiture where
someone failed to receive proper notice and “the Government knew, or reasonably
should have known, of the moving party’s interest and failed to take reasonable
steps to provide such party with notice.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1)(A). Once again, there
are no allegations in Jalloh’s amended complaint that the government failed to take
reasonable steps to provide him with notice. In fact, the mailing Jalloh attached to
his initial petition shows that Customs and Border Protection mailed it to his
current address. (Doc. 1 at ECF 5). That document also reveals the government
reviewed Jalloh’s arguments on the merits and it did not dismiss his claims for
being untimely. (Id. at ECF 16-19). Moreover, Jalloh had less time to file a petition
for remission, which he did, than if he chose to pursue a juridical proceeding.
Compare 19 C.F.R. § 171.2(b)(1) (setting a 30-day deadline) with 18 U.S.C. §
983(a)(2)(B) (setting a 35-day deadline). It is simply implausible to claim Jalloh was
deprived of his ability to seek juridical review when he sought administrative
review which came with a tighter timeline. Jalloh chose an administrative remedy;
he cannot now seek a judicial one. See Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d
1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011).
Case 1:24-cv-02243-KMN Document 21 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 4

Jalloh’s current complaint fails to state a claim. Further, based on the filings
already before the court, allowing any leave to amend would be futile. See In re
Walmart Inc. Sec. Litig., 151 F.4th 103, 112 (3d Cir. 2025). Therefore, his complaint
will be dismissed with prejudice and this case will be closed.
/S/ K ELI M. N EARY
Keli M. Neary
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
March 16th, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-02243-KMN Document 21 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 4