Dorothy Brown v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18623
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Brown challenges district court dismissal of her § 41(g)/forfeiture claim for $102,570 seized from her home, found in a safe during a search after her ex-son-in-law Cooper’s drug conspiracy case.
- Cooper was charged with conspiracy to violate federal drug laws and allegedly stored proceeds at Brown’s residence.
- Law enforcement recovered $102,570 from Brown’s safe; funds were identified in Cooper’s criminal case bill of particulars on Oct 22, 2010.
- Brown received notice on Nov 12, 2010 that the money would be subject to forfeiture; Cooper pled guilty and agreed to forfeiture.
- Brown filed an administrative claim on Dec 16, 2010, and then a 41(g)/§ 983 motion in Mar 2011; district court dismissed under 21 U.S.C. § 853(k)(2).
- Court affirmation follows, holding § 853(k)(2) bars Brown’s independent suit and that she may pursue relief only through § 853(n) proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 853(k)(2) bars Brown’s suit given the indictment and timing. | Brown contends lack of probable cause and improper timing of forfeiture. | United States argues the district court lacked jurisdiction under § 853(k)(2) once indictment and bill of particulars were filed. | Yes; § 853(k)(2) bars the suit. |
| Whether government’s failure to include property in indictment under § 983(a)(3)(B) invalidates forfeiture. | Brown argues the failure to indict before complaint deadline violates § 983(a)(3)(B). | 13 government argues timing requirements satisfied; third-party rights limited to § 853(n). | No; third-party remedy via § 853(n) controls. |
| Whether Brown can obtain relief for Fourth Amendment claims outside § 853 proceedings. | Brown alleges Fourth Amendment rights violation. | Such claims are not cognizable in this context and can be raised in § 853(n) proceeding. | No; adequately vindicated via § 853(n). |
| Whether Brown has an adequate remedy at law, making equitable relief inappropriate. | Brown seeks Rule 41(g) equitable relief. | Adequate remedy at law exists under § 853(n). | Yes; § 853(n) provides an adequate remedy at law; equitable relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Douglas, 55 F.3d 584 (11th Cir. 1995) (third party may not sue the United States when an indictment has been filed; remedy via § 853(n))
- United States v. Wade, 255 F.3d 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (scope of § 853(k) barring third parties; § 853(n) proceeding proper)
- United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (§ 853(k) bars independent suits; third parties must use § 853(n))
- United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011) (if third parties have no superior interest, invalidity rulings do not aid them)
- Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602 (6th Cir. 1989) (Rule 41(g) is equitable remedy; adequate legal remedies exist elsewhere)
- De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 41(g) relief not available when adequate legal remedy exists)
- United States v. Akers, 215 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2000) (adequate remedy at law; equities not available)