Hunt v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 2 F.3d 96 (5th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Hunt v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 2 F.3d 96 (5th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2000) · Strongest negative: In re FBI Seizure of Cash & Other Prop., 970 F. Supp. 557 (E.D. La. 1997)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 97 Determining the nature of rule 41(e) motions18 citing cases“because rule 41(e) motions represent a means by which a criminal defendant can determine her rights in property, and not a part of the trial and punishment process that is criminal law.”3 citing courts quote it · 16 listed here
  • United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2000).published 3 cites
    (Rule 41(e) motions represent a means by which a criminal defen- dant can determine her rights in property, and not a part of the trial and punishment process that is criminal law.)
  • United States v. Kelly, 872 F. Supp. 556 (N.D. Ind. 1994).published 3 cites
    (court *561 may deny Rule 41(e) motion where an adequate remedy at law exists)
  • Harbor Healthcare Sys. v. United States, 5 F.4th 593 (5th Cir. 2021).published
    (determining that a Louisiana forfeiture proceeding was not an adequate remedy because it would not help the movant recover wrongfully seized funds)
  • United States v. Daniel Morales, 807 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2015).published
    Hunt v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (Rule 4(a) applies to Rule 41(e) motions for return of property); Roher, 706 F.2d at 727 (Rule 4(a) applies to Rule 46(f) motions *721 to remit or set aside forfeitur…
  • In re Special Grand Jury 89-2, 450 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2006).published
    Such proceedings are essentially civil because they “ ‘represent a means by which a criminal defendant can determine her rights in property, and not a part of the trial and punishment process that is criminal law.’ ” Id. (quoting Hunt v. U…
  • In re Special Grand v., No. 04-1193 (10th Cir. Jan. 31, 2005).published
    Such proceedings are essentially civil because they “‘represent a means by which -13- a criminal defendant can determine her rights in property, and not a part of the trial and punishment process that is criminal law.’” Id. (quoting Hunt v…
  • United States v. Donald Lawrence Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003).published
    See, e.g., United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509, 511 (1st Cir.1995); Weng v. United States, 137 F.3d 709 , 711 n. 1 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664, 670 (3d Cir.2000); Hunt v. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir…
  • United States v. McClendon, 10 F. App'x 341 (7th Cir. 2001).unpublished
    Claims for the return of seized or forfeited property are civil in character, United States v. Duke, 229 F.3d 627, 629 (7th Cir.2000), and, because the United States is a party, McClendon had 60 days to file his notice of appeal under Fede…
  • In re 1997 Grand Jury United States of Am. v. Kermit Bunn, & Tri State Asphalt Corp., Party in Interest. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 215 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2000).unpublished
    We cited favorably Hunt v. Department of Justice , 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), in which the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a notice of appeal from a Rule 41(e) action was timely where it was filed outside the ten-day perio…
  • United States v. Bunn, 215 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2000).published
    We cited favorably Hunt v. Department of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam), in which the Fifth.
Show 6 more citing cases
  • United States v. Bounds, No. 96-41056 (5th Cir. May 5, 1997).unpublished
    Hunt v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1993).
  • United States v. Madden, 95 F.3d 38 (10th Cir. 1996).published
    (Rtde 41(e) motions represent a means by which a criminal defendant can determine her . rights in property, and not a part of the trial and punishment process that is criminal law)
  • Oriakhi v. Bialese, 33 F.3d 52 (4th Cir. 1994).unpublished
    Hunt v. United States Dep't of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Taylor, 975 F.2d 402, 403 (7th Cir.1992).
  • United States v. Carlos Miguel Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001).published 2 cites
    See, *1314 e.g., Hunt v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Taylor, 975 F.2d 402, 403 (7th Cir.1992).
  • Samuel Fiacro Pena v. United States, 122 F.3d 3 (5th Cir. 1997).published 2 cites
    See Hunt, 2 F.3d at 97 ; Industrias Cardoen, 983 F.2d at 51 ; accord United States v. Madden, 95 F.3d 38, 40 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Garcia, 65 F.3d 17, 20 (4th Cir.1995).
  • United States v. Daniel Garcia, 65 F.3d 17 (4th Cir. 1995).published 2 cites
    See, e.g., Hunt v. Department of Justice, 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir.1993), and cases cited therein.
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Terrance Keith HUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
92-4152.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 1, 1993.
Published opinion
2 F.3d 96
1993 WL 331283
Terrance Keith Hunt, pro se., James Allen Harvey, Jr., Neal G. Johnson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Monroe, LA, for State of La., Josette L. Cassiere, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph S. Cage, U.S. Atty., Shreveport, LA, for U.S. Dept, of Justice.
Reavley, Duhé, Barksdale.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Terrance Hunt appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his motion to return[*97] property. We agree with the district court that Hunt’s motion can be dismissed if he has an alternate adequate legal remedy, but we disagree with its conclusion that Hunt has such a remedy.

I. BACKGROUND

In May 1990, Terrance Hunt filed a motion under Fed.R.CRIM.P. 41(e) for the return of approximately $46,000, claiming that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) erroneously held this money. Hunt later added several Louisiana parties as defendants to his motion. [1]

In August 1990, the FBI issued two checks to Hunt for the total amount that he claimed. Louisiana seized these checks two months later according to a Louisiana judge’s warrant, which “authorized [Louisiana officials] to seize said aforementioned checks and hold them subject to the orders of th[e] court.” In November 1990, Louisiana claimed the checks in forfeiture proceedings.

By adopting a magistrate’s recommendations, the district court held that Hunt’s Rule 41(e) motion must be dismissed because the Louisiana forfeiture proceeding represents an adequate remedy at law under which he can recover his property. Alternatively, the court held that the Louisiana defendants must be dismissed because Hunt did not properly name them or state claims against them.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness of Appeal

Hunt filed his notice of appeal in this case after the ten-day limit for criminal appeals imposed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), but before the sixty-day limit for civil appeals imposed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Though Hunt initiated this case under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), the district court at all times treated this case as a civil proceeding. This court has also before decided procedural questions in Rule 41(e) eases according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Industrias Cardoen, Ltda. v. United States, 983 F.2d 49, 52 (5th Cir.1993) (addressing merits of appellants’ arguments concerning Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in a Rule 41(e) case). Other circuits have held that, for simplicity and clarity, “all appeals from orders granting or denying motions under Rule 41(e) will be treated as civil appeals.” United States v. Taylor, 975 F.2d 402, 403 (7th Cir.1992); accord United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1987). We agree with these courts because Rule 41(e) motions represent a means by which a criminal defendant can determine her rights in property, and not a part of the trial and punishment process that is criminal law. Accordingly, Hunt timely appealed the district court’s dismissal of his Rule 41(e) motion.

B. Remedy Adequaoy

The district court correctly held that a court may deny a Rule 41(e) motion where an adequate remedy at law exists. Industrias Cardoen, 983 F.2d at 51-52. But the court erred by holding that Hunt has an adequate remedy at law in the Louisiana forfeiture proceeding. The October 1990 warrant which permitted Louisiana authorities to seize the two United States cheeks payable to Hunt required a court order before Louisiana could cash those checks. The record contains no indication that Louisiana cashed the checks, nor that any court permitted Louisiana to do so. Moreover, the checks each state on the front “VOID AFTER ONE YEAR,” and bear an issuance date of August 28, 1990. Thus, the checks were worthless before the magistrate issued his Recommendation on December 24, 1991.

The FBI retains Hunt’s money, and the Louisiana forfeiture proceeding will not help him get it back. On remand, the district court must follow Industrias Cardoen and provide Hunt a means of challenging the FBI’s retention of his money. We admonish the court to act swiftly to resolve Hunt’s claims, which have lingered in the courts for years through no fault of Hunt.

[*98] C. Louisiana Defendants

We agree with the district court’s legal conclusions that require dismissal of the Louisiana defendants.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s judgment except as it applies to the Department of Justice. We reverse the judgment as it applies to the Department of Justice and remand this case for further consideration.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

1

. These parties are Jay Via, Marcus Clark, Metro Narcotics Unit of the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Department, and Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office.