Trocomis-Escovar v. U.S.

Dist Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s motion for return of forfeited property under Rule 41(g). Record showed that DEA agents seized $146,000 in cash found in plaintiff’s car, which agents deemed to be drug proceeds, and subsequently filed action to administratively forfeit said funds under 21 USC section 881(a)(6), Instead of filing “claim” with DEA to contest forfeiture, plaintiff’s counsel filed petition for remission. After deadline for filing claim had elapsed, DEA issued declaration of forfeiture, which precipitated plaintiff’s motion to return forfeited property. While Dist. Ct. found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion, Ct. of Appeals held that Dist. Ct. had jurisdiction to consider said motion under 28 USC section 1355. However, plaintiff’s motion failed on merits, where: (1) Rule 41(g) is not proper vehicle for challenging administrative forfeiture; and (2) counsel’s mistake in filing wrong pleading was not sufficient circumstance that would allow courts to exercise their equitable powers to override instant statutory requirement for filing timely claim. Also, 18 USC section 983(e) , which allows individuals to file motion to set aside declaration of forfeiture only if individual never received notice of government intent to forfeit property, did not apply to plaintiff’s circumstances.