Katherine Ann Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602 (6th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Katherine Ann Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602 (6th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“under standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.”
68 citation events (45 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Regional Airport v. LFG,LLC (ca6, 2006-08-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#12 19 U.S.C. § 1608 cited 4× in this case · 456 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Regional Airport v. LFG,LLC
6th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
under standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America v. $25,002.05 seized from JPMorgan Chase Account ending in 9869, held in the name of Adejoke T. Olumodeji, et al.
N.D.N.Y. · 2026 · confidence medium
And "[c]ivil forfeiture proceedings have been found to provide an adequate remedy at law for matters raised in motions filed pursuant to Rule 41(g)." Id. at 147 (citations omitted) (citing De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382 ); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brian Dewayne Darden-Mosby
6th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir. 1989) (“[A] claimant may not use Rule 41[] 5 Mosby purported to file that motion under Rule 47.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ashh, Inc. v. United States of America (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Mich. · 2022 · confidence medium
“Under standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.” Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) TD Bank NA v. Vernon Hill, II
3rd Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co., 639 F.2d 117 , 122 (3d 40 Cir. 1981); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Greenetrack, Inc. (2×)
Ala. · 2014 · confidence medium
Corp., 787 F.Supp. at 43 ; De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006); [United States v.] Hernandez, 911 F.2d [981] at 983 [ (5th Cir.1990) ]; United States v. Price, 914 F.2d 1507, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1990); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. U.S. Currency $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.1988).” Caracas Int’l Banking Corp. v. United States, 670 F.Supp.2d 142, 146 (D.P.R. 2009) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. $18,312.00 in United States Currency
S.D. Ohio · 2011 · confidence medium
Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caracas International Banking Corp. v. United States
D.P.R. · 2009 · confidence medium
Corp., 787 F.Supp. at 43 ; De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir.2006); Hernandez, 911 F.2d at 983; United States v. Price, 914 F.2d 1507, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1990); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. U.S. Currency $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Search Warrants Fof 27867 Orchard Lake Road Farmington Hills
E.D. Mich. · 2008 · confidence medium
Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-4 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Piedade Pedro De Almeida, Harber Corporation, Gatex Corporation, Mabon Corporation v. United States
2d Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See United States v. Price, 914 F.2d 1507, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1990) (per curiam) (“Accordingly, we now hold that once the Government initiates an administrative forfeiture proceeding and the property is not the subject of an ongoing criminal proceeding, the District Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the issue of return of property.”); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989) (explaining that Rule 41[ (g)] is an equitable remedy, and “[ujnder standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued”); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Fofo
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a)(5)(B) (former version at Rule 54(b)(5)); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Diaz (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See id.; Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Latham
6th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509, 511 (1st Cir.1995); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of ATF
W.D. Ky. · 2002 · confidence medium
However, “[a]fter the government initiates forfeiture proceedings and notifies a claimant of the proceedings, a claimant may no longer use Rule 41(e), but instead must submit to the statutory procedures governing civil forfeiture proceedings.” United States v. One 1971 Learjet 24D, 191 F.3d 668, 673 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Campbell
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509, 511 (1st Cir.1995) (per curiam); Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444, 445-46 (2d Cir.1994) (per curiam); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael James Armstrong v. United States
6th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989); Linarez v. United States Dep't of Justice, 2 F.3d 208 , 211-12 (7th Cir.1993). 7 Upon review, we affirm the district court's judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John J. Osorio
6th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1061 (9th Cir.1991); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989). 5 Accordingly, we hereby deny the motion for an injunction and the appointment of counsel, and affirm the district court's judgment.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lonnie L. Griffin
6th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Terry (2×)
Vt. · 1993 · confidence medium
Cir. 1990) (“once the Government initiates an administrative forfeiture proceeding and the property is not the subject of an ongoing criminal proceeding, the District Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the issue of return of property”); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 604 (6th Cir. 1989) (claimant who failed to pursue remedy in forfeiture proceeding was properly denied return of property under Rule 41(e)); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir. 1989) (“It is well-settled that the proper method for recovery of property which has been subject to civil forfeiture is …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Turner v. Smith
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1992 · confidence medium
There is no equitable remedy available after the government starts civil forfeiture proceedings; Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir. 1989); and a claim must be submitted following the procedures in the federal statutes.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosevita Charter Construction Corp. v. United States
D.P.R. · 1992 · confidence medium
See United States v. Hernández, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.1990) (claimant’s due process argument not properly before court since “the proper place to litigate the legality of the seizure is in the forfeiture proceeding”); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. United States Currency $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.1988) (“when a civil forfeiture proceeding has been filed, the claimant has adequate remedies to challenge any fourth amendment violation”); In re Harper, 835 F.2d 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Padilla
W.D.N.Y. · 1992 · confidence medium
See United States v. Price, 914 F.2d 1507, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1990) (per curiam) ("Accordingly, we now hold that once the Government initiates an administrative forfeiture proceeding and the property is not the subject of an on-going criminal proceeding, the District Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the issue of return of property.”); Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989) (Rule 41(e) is equitable remedy, and "Under standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.”); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir.1989) (per c…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re the Seizure of Four (4) DC-3 Aircraft
E.D. Wis. · 1991 · confidence medium
Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir.1990).
examined Cited "see" Shaw v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. Ohio · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 604 (6th Cir. 1989); Brown v. United States, 692 F.3d 550, 552 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing DeAlmeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2nd Cir. 2006)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. One 1974 Learjet 24D, Serial Number 24D-290, Mexican Registration XA-RMF (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited "see" Francisco Jaime Madrid (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Moses Mphikeleli Tsotetsi
6th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited "see" Matthews v. United States
E.D. Va. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989) (“where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.”); Schwartz v. United States, 976 F.2d at 217 (noting that where a defendant is provided with the opportunity of making a “conscious choice ... to forego the very procedures afforded to protect his right to due process”, he is denied later civil relief); Mayfield v. City of Virginia Beach, 780 F.Supp. 1082, 1085 (E.D.Va.1992) (Smith, J.) (finding that where a party ignores the federal statutory remedies for forfeiture, summary forfeiture is lawful). ii.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Property of Sue Ann Arledge. Sue Ann Arledge v. United States
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989). 3 Arledge raises the same argument on appeal. 4 Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court correctly denied the motion for return of property.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County v. Lfg, LLC Navistar International Transportation Corporation
6th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 307 Ky. 322 , 210 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Ky.1948) (“It is, of course, an ancient and settled principle that an equity court will not exert its powers where the litigant has an adequate remedy at law.”)); see also Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603 (6th Cir.1989) (“Under standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Oguaju
6th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Once forfeiture proceedings have been initiated and the property owner has been notified of such proceedings, “a claimant may no longer use Rule 41(e) [now Rule 41(g)], but instead must submit to the statutory procedures governing civil forfeiture proceedings.” United States v. One 1974 Learjet 24D, Serial Number 24D-290, Mexican Registration XA-RMF, 191 F.3d 668, 673 (6th Cir.1999); see also Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602, 603-04 (6th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Real Property Commonly Known as 16899 S.W. Greenbrier
D. Or. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602 (6th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Howard O'Brien Tharpe
6th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602 (6th Cir.1989); Unites States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018 (11th Cir.1989). 8 We acknowledge that pro se litigants are to be afforded some leeway in pleading and motion practice.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Katherine Ann SHAW, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
89-5092.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dec 14, 1989.
891 F.2d 602
Robert C. Brooks, Edward Witt Chandler, Gardner & Moore, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant., W. Hickman Ewing, Jr., U.S. Atty., Tony R. Arvin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
Merritt, Wellford, Demascio.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published
MERRITT, Chief Judge.

Katherine Ann Shaw appeals the District Court’s denial of a motion she filed under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking the return of money seized by federal agents. We affirm.

Shaw was on board a plane at Memphis Airport bound for Los Angeles when federal agents seized $45,008 from her. Even though no criminal charges were brought against her, she filed a motion for return of her property under Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 41(e). Only after the District Court issued an Order compelling the government to show cause why her property should not be returned did the government institute civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 881(d).

The District Court denied Shaw’s motion for return of her property on the grounds that there was a specific remedy provided for at law which she failed to pursue. See 19 U.S.C. § 1608 and § 1618. Thus, the equitable remedy of Rule 41(e) was not available to Shaw.

Three circuits have held that where the government has brought a civil forfeiture action a claimant may not use Rule 41(e) to bypass the statutory procedure provided for. See United States v. United States Currency, 851 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir.1988) (government’s filing of civil forfeiture action required dismissal of owner’s Rule 41(e) motion); In re Harper, 835 F.2d 1273 (8th Cir.1988) (even though Rule 41(e) motion filed before civil proceedings initiated, plaintiff not entitled to return of property where he failed to pursue administrative remedies); In re Seizure Warrant, 830 F.2d 372 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam) (where civil and not criminal proceeding is pending plaintiff may not invoke Rule 41(e)).

Once the government initiated civil proceedings against her, she was required to follow the statutory procedures set out in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1608 and 1618. [1] Here Shaw ignored those procedures and sought to use the equitable remedy rather than pursuing the legal remedy. Under standard equity doctrine, where there is an adequate remedy at law it must be pursued.

Although the Tenth Circuit held in Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999 (10th Cir.[*604] 1988), that the district court properly retained jurisdiction [2] even after the government indicated it would initiate civil forfeiture proceedings, that case is readily distinguishable. In Floyd the government indicated in an affidavit that it intended to file a civil forfeiture action against Floyd, but did not formally do so until after the district court held a hearing on Floyd’s 41(e) motion. Floyd, 860 F.2d at 1004. Because notice was not published until after the 41(e) hearing, Floyd could not have availed himself of the appropriate legal remedies. Section 1607 requires that the government publish a notice of intent to seize property. Only after receiving that notice is a plaintiff required to follow the statutory procedures.

Here Shaw received official notice when the DEA mailed a Notice of Seizure to her on June 3, 1988. Since Shaw was given proper notice, she was required to file a claim and cost bond with the DEA within twenty-one days. 19 U.S.C. § 1608.

Because notice was proper and Shaw failed to pursue the remedy at law, the District Court properly denied her motion for return of property under Rule 41(e).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Judge DeMascio concurs in the result on the grounds that Rule 41(e) does not provide an independent cause of action for return of property.

1

. 19 U.S.C. § 1608 requires that the plaintiff file a claim and cost bond with the agency. 19 U.S.C. § 1618 requires that the plaintiff file a petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture.

2

. In view of the result reached herein, dismissing Shaw’s motion, we do not reach the question of jurisdiction.