United States v. Barry Franz Verdieu
17-11572
| 11th Cir. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- In June 2011 Verdieu was arrested during an attempted purchase of 3,000 oxycodone pills; a jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and a related firearms offense.
- Nearly four years after his criminal appeal concluded, Verdieu (pro se) filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion seeking return of $10,500 seized at arrest.
- The government produced a DEA Declaration of Forfeiture showing the $10,500 was administratively forfeited on October 20, 2011, after publication and no claims were filed.
- The government advised Verdieu that the exclusive statutory remedy to challenge the forfeiture was a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e).
- The district court denied the Rule 41(g) motion as improper because the money was administratively forfeited and the court lacked equitable jurisdiction; Verdieu appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Rule 41(g) is unavailable for property subject to civil/administrative forfeiture and Verdieu had an adequate legal remedy under § 983(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 41(g) is available to recover money administratively forfeited by DEA | Verdieu argued the government unlawfully retained the money and the district court could exercise equitable jurisdiction to return it | Government showed the money had been administratively forfeited and urged Rule 41(g) is unavailable for property forfeited civilly | Rule 41(g) unavailable where property was administratively forfeited; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court had equitable jurisdiction after criminal proceedings ended | Verdieu contended the court could review forfeiture and craft relief under equitable powers | Government argued Verdieu had an adequate remedy at law (§ 983(e)), so equitable jurisdiction was lacking | Court lacked equitable jurisdiction because an adequate legal remedy existed (§ 983(e)) |
| Whether lack of receipt of government’s response deprived Verdieu of ability to contest forfeiture | Verdieu claimed he did not receive the government’s response and was prejudiced | Government noted local rules did not entitle Verdieu to a reply and provided the forfeiture declaration | Failure to receive the response did not confer jurisdiction; local rules did not require a reply |
| Applicability of Honeycutt to administrative forfeiture | Verdieu invoked Honeycutt to argue criminal forfeiture principles should invalidate the forfeiture | Government replied Honeycutt addressed criminal forfeiture under § 853, not administrative forfeiture | Honeycutt inapplicable because it concerned criminal forfeiture, not DEA administrative forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254 (11th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(g) unavailable where property was seized for civil forfeiture)
- United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2005) (post‑conviction Rule 41(g) treated as civil equitable action)
- United States v. Martinez, 241 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court’s determination on equitable jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672 (11th Cir. 1999) (equitable review limited to whether agency followed procedural safeguards)
- Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (§ 983(e) is the exclusive remedy to set aside civil forfeiture declarations)
- United States v. Machado, 465 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing equitable denial of Rule 41(g) motions)
- United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing abrogation context for related precedent)
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (addresses criminal forfeiture under § 853; not controlling for administrative forfeiture)