At page 983 Determining proper forum for property forfeiture litigation15 citing casesaffirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because appellant’s “arguments, amounting to a claim that he was deprived of his property without due process of law, are not properly before us, as the proper place to litigate the legality of the seizure is in the forfeiture proceeding
- We CBD, LLC v. United States, No. 3:21-cv-00115, 2022 WL 989253 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2022).(the proper place to litigate the legality of [a] seizure [and forfeiture] is in the forfeiture proceeding.)
- United States v. $39,900 in US Currency, No. 3:23-cv-01168 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2024).United States v. Hernandez, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990).
- Lasry v. Mayorkas, No. 3:22-cv-00756 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2022).unpublished([T]he proper place to litigate the legality of [a] seizure [and forfeiture] is in the forfeiture proceeding.”’)
- United States v. CURRENCY, No. 5:21-cv-00224 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2021).The Court concludes that the “proper place to litigate the legality of the seizure is in the forfeiture proceeding[.]” United States v. Herńandez, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. United States Currency § 83,310…
- Caracas Int'l Banking Corp. v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D.P.R. 2009).published 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); Unite…
- Pakistan Nat'l Shipping Corp. v. Cargo of 2,733.82 M/T of Heavy Steel Scrap, 159 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Tex. 2001).publishedThe law in the Fifth Circuit follows this general rule, for in the context of an administrative forfeiture proceeding by the government, the Fifth Circuit has held that “the proper place to litigate the legality of [a] seizure is in the fo…
- United States v. $70,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 203 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. Ohio 2000).publishedSee Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997) ("Based on the clear mandate of the statutory scheme, we conclude, as have other circuits facing the issue, that once the Government initiates forfeiture proceedings, the district c…
- Samuel Fiacro Pena v. United States, 122 F.3d 3 (5th Cir. 1997).published See United States v. Robinson, 78 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir.1996); cf. United States v. Hernandez, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (finding rule 41(e) inapplicable in a suit for the return of property subject to civil forfeiture…
- Maria Jimena Ibarra v. United States Unknown Gov't Officers, 120 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997).published (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because due process claims regarding the seizure are properly liti- gated during the forfeiture proceeding)
- Jesus M. Sanchez v. United States, 976 F.2d 724 (1st Cir. 1992).unpublishedUnited States v. Hernandez, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.1990). 3 Affirmed.
Show 4 more citing cases
- Sanchez v. United States, No. 92-1073 (1st Cir. Aug. 7, 1992).publishedUnited States v. Hernandez, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. _____________ _________ 1990).
- Martin Onwubiko v. United States, 969 F.2d 1392 (2d Cir. 1992).publishedUnited States v. Price, 914 F.2d 1507, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Hernandez, 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Rapp, 539 F.2d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir.1976); Bartlett v. United States, 317 F…
- Hernandez Martinez v. United States, No. 4:19-cv-01031 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2021).(affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because appellant’s “arguments, amounting to a claim that he was deprived of his property without due process of law, are not properly before us, as the proper place to litig…)
- Rosevita Charter Constr. Corp. v. United States, 787 F. Supp. 39 (D.P.R. 1992).published(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)
At page 982 Jurisdiction to review district court order denying petition1 citing case
- United States v. Gilowski, No. 24-10336 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2025).unpublishedBecause we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying Anida’s petition, see Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 658-60 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hernandez, 911 F.2d 981, 982-83 (5th Cir. 1990), the…
v.
Paul Espinoza HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Following his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and of aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute cocaine, defendant Paul Hernandez appeals from the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) motion to return to him jewelry worn by him and seized at the time of his arrest. Finding that the district court was correct in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion, we affirm.
I.
The Drug Enforcement Administration initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings against Hernandez’s property, as proceeds of unlawful activity in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1607 as incorporated by 21 U.S.C. § 881(d). The proceedings were stayed by the agency during a period in which Hernandez was a fugitive from justice. Hernandez does not assert that he received no notice; yet he failed to file a bond to stop the administrative forfeiture proceedings, as required by 21 C.F.R. § 1316.76, and the declaration of forfeiture proceeded under 21 C.F.R. § 1316.77. After receiving notice of the forfeiture, Hernandez filed a petition for remission or mitigation in the administrative process under 21 C.F.R. § 1316.79; the DEA denied the petition. Hernandez then filed a pro se motion for return of property under rule 41(e), which the district court denied for lack of jurisdiction.
[*983] II.
Hernandez’s arguments, amounting to a claim that he was deprived of his property without due process of law, are not properly before us, as the proper place to litigate the legality of the seizure is in the forfeiture proceeding. Castleberry v. Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms Div., 530 F.2d 672, 675 (5th Cir.1976). Hernandez failed to comply with statutory requirements of a claim and bond under § 1316.76 in order to seek judicial determination. Instead, he filed a petition for remission or mitigation with the agency and a rule 41(e) motion in the district court. The only issue before us is whether the district court erred in denying Hernandez’s motion under rule 41(e) for lack of jurisdiction.
A forfeiture proceeding under the Drug Abuse Prevention Act was intended to be a “civil in rem” proceeding, rather than a criminal sanction. See United States v. D.K.G. Appaloosas, Inc., 829 F.2d 532, 543-45 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 976, 108 S.Ct. 1270, 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988). Rule 41(e) is a rule of criminal procedure, but Fed.R.Crim.P. 1 provides the following:
These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the courts of the United States, as provided in Rule 54(a); and, whenever specifically provided in one of the rules, to preliminary, supplementary, and special proceedings before United States magistrates and at proceedings before state and local judicial officers.
These rules do not apply to civil forfeiture of property for a violation of a statute. See United States v. Rapp, 539 F.2d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 54(b)(5)). Consequently, rule 41(e) cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in a civil action, and the district court did not err in denying Hernandez’s motion for return of property under rule 41(e).
AFFIRMED.