United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254 (11th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254 (11th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Andres Cabezas (ca11, 2024-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Andres Cabezas (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
We explained, however, in discussing Rule 41(g)’s predeces- sor, the former Rule 41(e), that “[w]hen property is retained pursu- ant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule 41(e) motion is not available.” United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SPADY v. United States
D.N.J. · 2020 · confidence medium
Williams v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 620 F. App’x 72 , 74–75 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 256 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (explaining that the government’s admission that property was administratively forfeited “deprive[s] the court of authority to grant the Rule 41(g) motion”)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Barry Franz Verdieu (3×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). 2 Martinez and other pre-2002 cases cited here addressed Rule 41(e), which was reclassified as Rule 41(g) in 2002 with no substantive changes.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brian Lee Foster (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Rule 41(g) also is unavailable when, as here, property has been “retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence.” United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Greenetrack, Inc.
Ala. · 2014 · confidence medium
“When property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule 41[ (g) ] motion is not available.” United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carlos Garza (2×)
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255-56 (11th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Guerra
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1999); United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997); see also Young v. United States, 489 F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir.2007) (persuasive authority holding that a defendant cannot use Rule 41(g) to challenge a criminal forfeiture order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) VANHORN v. Florida
M.D. Fla. · 2009 · confidence medium
United States v. Artis, 172 Fed.Appx. 309, 311 (11th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997)); United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672 , 674 (11th Cir.1999) ("A [Rule 41(g)] motion is unavailable ... when property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture instead of for use as evidence.”); see also United States v. Barnhardt, No. 04-cr-0132, 2006 WL 2474224 , 2 (D.D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jerry Lindsay Artis
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
We have held, however, that “[wjhen property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a [Rule 41(g) ] 2 motion is not available.” United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997); accord United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1999) (“A [Rule 41(g) ] motion is unavailable ... when property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture instead of for use as evidence.”); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1020 (11th Cir.1989) (“Defendant cannot use the criminal procedure device of [Rule 41(g) ] to seek relief from a civil forfei…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Randall
M.D. Ala. · 1997 · confidence medium
“When property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule 41(e) motion is not available.” United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Drug Enforcement Administration
3rd Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 256 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (explaining that the government’s admission that property, in that case, money, was administratively forfeited “deprive[s] the court of authority to grant the Rule 41(g) motion”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Troy Simon
11th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (holding Rule 41(e), the predecessor to Rule 41(g), does not apply to civil forfeiture actions).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Warren
D. Kan. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1067 , 118 S.Ct. 1407 , 140 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Eubanks
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1407 , 140 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Eubanks
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1407 (1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. CURRENCY
M.D. Ga. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
However, “[a] Rule 41(g) motion . . . is unavailable when property is seized pursuant to civil forfeiture.” United States v. Bynum, 775 F. App’x 626 , 628 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir. 1999)); see also United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Sewell, No. 2:03-cr-232-MEF, 2014 WL 4599803 , at *2 (M.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Albajon v. Gugliotta
S.D. Fla. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir.1997) (“Equitable jurisdiction to review a forfeiture is extremely limited and does not lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy at law”); In re One 1983 Mercedes Benz Automobile, 131 F.R.D. 199, 200-01 (M.D.Ala.1989) (court would not exercise equitable jurisdiction over request for return of car declared forfeited where claimant failed to contest forfeiture in administrative proceedings and did not claim that government acted in bad faith or contrib *1373 uted to failure to exercise legal remedy).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Willie James WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant
94-4948.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 27, 1997.
120 F.3d 254
Willie J. Watkins, Jesup, GA, Kathleen Williams, Federal Public Defender, Chih-Pin Lu, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant., William A. Keefer, U.S. Attorney, Orlando A. Prescott, Linda Collins Hertz, Dawn Bowen, Michael R. Tein, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edmondson, O'Neill, Per Curiam, Tjoflat.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Willie Watkins appeals the denial of his motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) for return of property ($2,471.91) seized by federal officers at the time of his arrest on drug charges. The money was not used as evidence at Watkins’s criminal trial, in which he was convicted. In the Rule 41(e) proceedings, the government represented to the district court that the money had been administratively forfeited by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

When property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule 41(e) motion is not available. United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir.1989). When the government, in its written response to a Rule 41(e) motion, admits its position is that, by forfeiture, the movant has already permanently lost his right to the pertinent property, the government’s judicial admission is enough to deprive the court of the authority to grant the Rule 41(e) motion. Put differently, when the government says in court that the property (at least, where it is money — a fungible[*256] item ** ) has been, in fact, forfeited to it (that is, has been taken in fact), the issue for adjudication then becomes whether the government has acted wrongfully in taking the property. We do not understand Watkins to have argued to the district court or to us that his money had not, in fact, been taken, but understand him to say it was taken without due process.

Equitable relief beyond Rule 41(e), if it was asked for in district court, was unavailable. Equitable jurisdiction to review a forfeiture is extremely limited and does not lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., In re $67,470.00, 901 F.2d 1540, 1544-45 (11th Cir.1990). Watkins could seek money damages through a lawsuit—see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (the Tucker Act) — against the United States if the government has wrongfully converted his property; for example, if appropriate administrative procedures were not followed. The dismissal of the Rule 41(e) motion, in itself, does not adjudicate the lawfulness of the forfeiture.

The district court’s denial of Mr. Watkins’s motion is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

We do not address cases in which the property taken by the government is something other than money, but we do not mean to hint that the law would necessarily be different if some other kind of property were involved.