Ordonez v. United States
680 F.3d 1135
9th Cir.2012Background
- Ordonez was convicted in 1994 for drug possession with intent to distribute and sought return of seized property under Rule 41(g).
- Some seized items were returned to his designated agent; numerous items were lost or destroyed and not returned.
- He then sought equitable relief in the form of money damages for the missing property.
- The district court dismissed, holding sovereign immunity barred monetary damages under Rule 41(g).
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal, holding no sovereign immunity waiver for monetary damages exists in Rule 41(g).
- The court concluded that Rule 41(g) only provides for return of property, not monetary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars money damages under Rule 41(g) when property cannot be returned | Ordonez argues damages are permissible due to loss of property. | Government argues sovereign immunity bars monetary relief absent an express waiver. | Barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether Rule 41(g) contains an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity for monetary claims | Ordonez contends Congress implicitly allowed damages when property is lost/destroyed. | Government argues the rule speaks only to return of property with no monetary remedy. | No express waiver; damages barred |
| Whether prior decisions on Rule 41(g) imply damages may be awarded despite sovereign immunity | Ordonez relies on Martinson to allow amendment to seek damages. | Government notes Martinson does not resolve sovereign immunity head-on and is not controlling. | Martinson not controlling; sovereign immunity bars damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (sovereign immunity waivers must be unequivocally expressed)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (consent to sue government required for jurisdiction)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992) (waivers must be clear in text)
- Cooper v. FAA, 566 U.S. _ (2012) (agency waivers must be unequivocally expressed)
- United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1993) (no monetary sanctions absent explicit waiver; Rule 41(g) lacks independent monetary authority)
- United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364 (1987) (remand may consider damages but does not establish sovereign immunity exception)
- Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2004) (equitable claims for money damages barred where property cannot be returned)
- Potes Ramirez v. United States, 260 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (Rule 41(e) does not waive sovereign immunity for monetary relief)