Conservation Force v. Salazar
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15011
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs hunted leopards in Africa and attempted to import trophies without proper export permits, triggering seizure by FWS.
- Blasquez’s import occurred in 2008 with a copy of a Zambia export permit lacking a required signature; Namibian permit issues followed for Crook.
- FWS issued Notices of Seizure and Proposed Forfeiture and offered administrative remission or judicial forfeiture options.
- Both plaintiffs pursued administrative remission petitions, which were denied after review by the Office of the Solicitor.
- Plaintiffs and Conservation Force filed suit in district court alleging CAFRA, Eighth Amendment, and due process violations; district court dismissed CAFRA for lack of jurisdiction and the remaining claims for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFRA review is available after pursuing administrative remedies | Blasquez and Crook argue CAFRA review should proceed in court. | Defendants contend administrative remedies are exclusive once pursued. | CAFRA review barred; remedies exclusive, dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether choosing the administrative path waives judicial forfeiture | Plaintiffs exercised remission petitions, seeking discretionary return. | Administrative remission is exclusive; no judicial path unless notice defective. | Exclusive remedies apply; judicial forfeiture unavailable after remission petitions. |
| Whether proper notice or procedural defects toll judicial review | Not asserted here beyond administrative pursuit. | Notice and procedures complied; no basis to bypass exclusive remedies. | No reversal; notice rights do not open judicial review where admin path pursued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malladi Drugs & Pharm., Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 889 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (administrative and legal forfeiture remedies are alternative, not sequential)
- In re $844,520 (Cole v. United States), 136 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 1998) (remedies are exclusive after pursuing administrative path)
- Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for dismissal on jurisdictional and procedural grounds)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (facially plausible claim requirement and pleading standards)