Chike Okafor v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 666
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA seized $99,500 from Okafor’s carry-on at SFO in 2013 and sent a forfeiture notice stating claims were due by June 5, 2013.
- Okafor says his lawyer gave a claim to FedEx for overnight delivery on June 4; DEA received it June 6 and deemed it untimely.
- Okafor’s follow-up letters were treated by DEA as a petition for remission and were denied; DEA administratively forfeited the funds and issued a declaration of forfeiture.
- Okafor moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) seeking return of property and equitable tolling of the CAFRA filing deadline; the government argued the court lacked jurisdiction under CAFRA.
- The district court concluded it had equitable jurisdiction but denied equitable tolling on the merits; Okafor appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §983(e) (CAFRA) bars district-court equitable relief (jurisdictional) | Okafor argued district court could hear his equitable tolling claim under Rule 41(g) | Government argued §983(e) is jurisdictional and forecloses equitable tolling actions in district court | §983(e) is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional; district court had jurisdiction to hear the motion |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances justify equitable tolling of the statutory claim deadline | Okafor argued FedEx’s delayed delivery of his timely-sent claim justified equitable tolling | Government argued FedEx delay was ordinary negligence and not a basis for tolling | No equitable tolling: attorney/filing-by-mail mistakes and carrier delays are routine negligence and do not meet the extraordinary-circumstance standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (warning against treating claim-processing rules as jurisdictional)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (statutory language required to treat a rule as jurisdictional)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (elements for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (attorney negligence ordinarily does not warrant equitable tolling)
- Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015) (routine attorney mailing near deadline is ordinary negligence)
- Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction rulings)