600 F. App'x 216
5th Cir.2015Background
- Kevin Ray Landry, pro se, moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for return of seized/forfeited funds tied to his 2008 drug/firearms conviction.
- He sought three categories: $44,846.35 (purportedly seized 1994–2002 per PSR), $2,635 (seized 2005, Austin Police Department), and $9,470 (DEA administratively forfeited December 18, 2006).
- DEA mailed certified personal notice for the $9,470 in August and October 2006; one certified mailing was signed for at the detention facility; DEA published notice in The Wall Street Journal in Aug–Sept 2006; Landry did not file a timely claim and DEA administratively forfeited the $9,470.
- The record contains no evidence the United States seized the 1994–2002 funds or the 2005 APD funds; the 2005 funds appear to have been administered by APD, not the United States.
- The district court granted the Government’s summary judgment motion and denied Landry’s Rule 41(g) and summary judgment motions; Landry appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claims for 1994–2002 seizures | Landry contends he can recover amounts listed in his PSR | Government: statute of limitations bars recovery; no evidence U.S. seized funds | Held: Claim time-barred — Rule 41(g) six-year period runs from expiration of government’s five-year forfeiture window; latest alleged seizure predated cutoff |
| Return of 2005 APD funds ($2,635) | Landry asserts those funds were taken and should be returned | Government: no evidence U.S. seized or forfeited these funds; APD, not DEA/U.S., handled forfeiture | Held: No jurisdiction/relief against U.S. because U.S. never possessed the funds; summary judgment for Government |
| Challenge to 2006 DEA administrative forfeiture ($9,470) — notice sufficiency | Landry argues he did not receive timely personal notice and forfeiture was invalid | Government: complied with CAFRA — personal notice and publication; Landry failed to timely file a claim | Held: Claim barred by statutory limitations — final publication Sept. 11, 2006; challenge due by Sept. 11, 2011; Landry filed in 2013 |
| Bivens claim for constitutional violations | Landry appears to assert Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendment harms | Government: Bivens remedy does not lie against the United States | Held: Bivens relief cannot be pursued directly against the United States |
Key Cases Cited
- Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 391 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for grant of summary judgment)
- Wright v. United States, 361 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 41(g) six-year statute of limitations)
- Bailey v. United States, 508 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2007) (accrual of claim tied to government forfeiture window)
- Polanco v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 158 F.3d 647 (2d Cir. 1998) (claim accrual principles in forfeiture context)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 447 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (Bivens remedies not available against the United States)