Amaral v. United States
Misc. No. 2021-0041
| D.D.C. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- In March 2018 Westport (MA) police seized $118,763 from Brett Amaral; the DEA later obtained the currency and initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings.
- The DEA mailed notices and posted on Forfeiture.gov; Amaral received none because he was incarcerated from Nov. 2017 to July 2020 on unrelated state charges.
- The DEA issued a Declaration of Forfeiture after Amaral did not object; Amaral then filed a § 983(e) motion to set aside that administrative forfeiture for lack of adequate notice.
- After Amaral filed his § 983(e) motion, the DEA voluntarily rescinded the 2018 Declaration of Forfeiture and reinitiated administrative forfeiture proceedings with fresh notice.
- Amaral filed a timely petition for remission/mitigation (but did not file an administrative "claim" for judicial forfeiture); the DEA denied the petition.
- The Government moved to dismiss (or transfer) arguing the case was moot and that Amaral failed to pursue the proper administrative claim; the Court held the case moot and dismissed Amaral’s § 983(e) motion without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness from voluntary rescission | Amaral sought an order setting aside the 2018 forfeiture for lack of notice | Rescission and reinitiation of proceedings gave Amaral the relief he sought | Case is moot; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Scope of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) | § 983(e) entitles a person who lacked adequate notice to have a declaration set aside | Rescission effectuated the statutory remedy; government may reinitiate administratively | Rescission equals § 983(e) relief; favorable decision would not change parties’ rights |
| Requirement to file an administrative claim for judicial review | (Amaral did not press an argument here in opposition) | Failure to file a timely administrative claim precludes judicial review of the subsequent forfeiture | Court did not decide merits, but noted precedent likely bars review if no administrative claim is filed |
| Venue / transfer | (Amaral filed in D.C.) | Government alternatively sought dismissal for improper venue or transfer to D. Mass. | Not reached on merits; transfer motion denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (plaintiff's personal interest must persist throughout litigation)
- Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (case becomes moot when relief would not affect parties' rights)
- Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Commission, 757 F.3d 300 (rescission of action can moot a claim because plaintiffs received requested relief)
- Malladi Drugs & Pharms., Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 885 (failure to file administrative claim generally precludes later judicial challenge)
- Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc., 775 F.3d 425 (arguments not addressed in opposition may be treated as conceded)
- Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)