At page 255 Availability of rule 41 motions in civil forfeiture15 citing casesEquitable jurisdiction to review a forfeiture is extremely limited and does not lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy at law
- United States v. Andres Cabezas, No. 22-11566 (11th Cir. July 2, 2024).unpublished We explained, however, in discussing Rule 41(g)’s predecessor, the former Rule 41(e), that “[w]hen property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule 41(e) motion is not available.” United States v. W…
- United States v. Barry Franz Verdieu, No. 17-11572 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).unpublished United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). 2 Martinez and other pre-2002 cases cited here addressed Rule 41(e), which was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.
- United States v. Brian Lee Foster, 635 F. App'x 818 (11th Cir. 2015).unpublished Rule 41(g) also is unavailable when, as here, property has been “retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence.”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).
- State v. Greenetrack, Inc., 154 So. 3d 940 (Ala. 2014).published“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).
- United States v. Carlos Garza, 486 F. App'x 782 (11th Cir. 2012).unpublished United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255-56 (11th Cir.1997).
- United States v. Guerra, 426 F. App'x 694 (11th Cir. 2011).unpublishedUnited 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 cann…
- VANHORN v. Florida, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (M.D. Fla. 2009).publishedUnited 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 ... wh…
- United States v. Jerry Lindsay Artis, 172 F. App'x 309 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublishedWe 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 S…
- United States v. Randall, 976 F. Supp. 1442 (M.D. Ala. 1997).published“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).
- United States v. Troy Simon, 609 F. App'x 1002 (11th Cir. 2015).unpublishedSee 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).
Show 4 more citing cases
- United States v. Warren, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Kan. 2001).publishedSee 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).
- United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672 (11th Cir. 1999).published See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1407 (1998).
- United States v. CURRENCY, No. 5:21-cv-00224 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2021).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…
- Albajon v. Gugliotta, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Fla. 1999).published(Equitable jurisdiction to review a forfeiture is extremely limited and does not lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy at law)
At page 256 Reviewing equitable relief after government property forfeiture3 citing casesexplaining that the government’s admission that property was administratively forfeited “deprive[s] the court of authority to grant the Rule 41[g] motion
- SPADY v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-14012 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 2020).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 fo…
- United States v. Carlos Garza, 486 F. App'x 782 (11th Cir. 2012).unpublished United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 255-56 (11th Cir.1997).
- Williams v. Drug Enf't Admin., 620 F. App'x 72 (3d Cir. 2015).unpublishedSee 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 Rul…
At page 254 “when property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a rule 41(e) motion is not available.”0 citing cases
v.
Willie James WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant
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.