United States v. Donald Wilson, 699 F.3d 789

In Oct 2006, law enforcement stopped Wilson and seized $13,963 from him in connection with drug trafficking.
The government commenced an administrative forfeiture action; Wilson claimed the money came from legitimate sources.
The district court found the money substantially connected to Wilson’s drug-trafficking and entered summary judgment of forfeiture on Oct 13, 2009; we affirmed on per curiam review in 2010.
Wilson’s claim prompted a Rule 60(b)(4) motion after mandate, asserting the government filed its complaint outside the 90-day limit of 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3).
The district court held § 983(a)(3)’s 90-day requirement is not jurisdictional and Wilson forfeited the issue by failing to raise it earlier.
The court also addressed in rem jurisdiction and remand for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, concluding no abuse of discretion in not treating the motion as including a Rule 60(b)(6) claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 983(a)(3)’s 90-day filing deadline jurisdictional?	Wilson contends the deadline is jurisdictional and voids the forfeiture if late.	Government argues the deadline is a nonjurisdictional, waivable rule.	Not jurisdictional; late filing is waivable.
Did Wilson's failure to raise the late filing defense waive the issue?	Wilson argues the defense should be considered despite procedural defaults.	Government contends the defense was not raised earlier and is waived.	Wilson forfeited the defense by not raising it during the action.
Does the late filing affect in rem jurisdiction over the currency?	Unlawful seizure if late filing precludes in rem jurisdiction.	The government’s late filing does not immunize the property from forfeiture if independently supported.	In rem jurisdiction remains; late filing does not bar forfeiture.
Should the case be remanded to consider Rule 60(b)(6) relief?	Wilson seeks remand to permit catchall Rule 60(b)(6) relief.	Court should not reinterpret the motion to include Rule 60(b)(6) relief.	No remand required; district court did not abuse in ruling the 60(b)(6) issue.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (jurisdictional treatment of time limits varies by context)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (U.S. 2010) (context matters for jurisdictional labeling; some time limits are not jurisdictional)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (U.S. 2012) (clear-statement principle for jurisdictional character of requirements)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (U.S. 2011) (clarifies when statistical language can indicate jurisdictional status)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (U.S. 2008) (limits defenses are often waivable; not inherently jurisdictional)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; fundamental principle)