*1 *Reginald McGlory, Appellant Shoats’ confinement administrative in No. * (Pursuant been, in custody 12(a), has accordance with the 98-3579 to Rule F.R.A.P.) (D.C.Civ. 90-cv-00370) regulations, every month DOC reviewed No. Superintendent. the PRC Fur- 98-3578, Nos. 98-3579. thermore, given op- Shoats has been portunity to present personally his views of Appeals, Court effect, review. See A85-86. at each Third Circuit. the record demonstrates that con- Shoats’ Submitted Under Third Circuit

tinued placement custody administrative 34.1(a) LAR July 1999. is supported pass evidence sufficient to Argued En Banc Nov. constitutional muster. Because Shoats has failed to any support for his asser- May Filed tions that his PRC reviews were constitu- tionally inadequate, we peri- hold that the

odic reviews conducted the PRC here

comport with the minimum constitutional process.

standards for due

III.

Accordingly, we affirm the district decision.

court’s

UNITED STATES America TELEVISION;

ONE TOSHIBA COLOR Answering Machines;

Two One Computer

Health Tech

*Reginald McGlory, Appellant in No. *(Pursuant

98-3578, 12(a), Rule

F.R.A.P.) (D.C.Civ. 90-cv-00138) No.

United States of America Jewelry

Assorted

mail to in which McGlory was incarcerated. maintains that he did not receive the and that government should have ensured that he personal received pro notification of the *3 ceedings against his In property. United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664 Cir. 2000) (en banc), which involved different property McGlory’s of subject that was forfeiture, administrative this Court ruled Young, Michael A. Esquire (Argued), that merely sending notice to the Marshals York, N.Y., New for Appellant. Counsel Service, in custody whose McGlory was held, satisfy did not the Litman, Constitution. We Harry Esquire (Argued), Unit- held minimum, “at due process re Sehlueter, ed Attorney, States Bonnie R. quires that person when a is in govern the Mary Houghton, Esquire, McKeen Assis- custody ment’s and place detained at a of tant Attorney, United States Pittsburgh, its notice of a choosing, pending adminis PA, for Appellees. Counsel

trative proceeding must be mailed to the detainee at his or place her Submitted Third Circuit Under noted, confinement.” Id. at 674. We 34.1(a) July LAR 1999. “[wjhether however, that anything more is BECKER, Before: Judge, Chief ROTH required presently is not before us.” Id. RENDELL, and Judges. Circuit appeal This squarely presents the question Argued En Banc Now. 1999. whether required. “more” is BECKER, Before: Judge, Chief asks that we rule the at forfeitures SLOVITER, issue MANSMANN case invalid because he did GREENBERG, SCIRICA, receive actual notice of NYGAARD, proceed the ALITO, ROTH, ings. McKEE, RENDELL and

BARRY, Judges. Circuit As in all cases in which notice proper issue, under the Due Process is Clause

Filed May 2000. touchstone of is whether the OPINION OF THE COURT calculated, notice “reasonably under circumstances, all the apprise interested BECKER, Judge. Chief parties pendency of the of the action and appeals Reginald these consolidated afford them an opportunity present McGlory challenges the results of two for- objections.” their v. Central Mullane proceedings. appeal feiture The first re- Trust, Co., Hanover & Bank quires that question we revisit (1950). 94 L.Ed. 865 S.Ct. notice that must government urges mailing a let- pursues when forfeiture proceedings ter first-class mail to the location of the the property of an incarcerated party interested is always sufficient. custody. in its defendant The second con- contrast, McGlory, argues higher that a cerns the District Court’s use of the doc- prevail standard should party when the of laches to prevent McGlory trine from held in custody by government the same challenging a proceeding in that wishes to serve notice him. He upon given which the notice for the forfeiture is government maintains that the inwas later discovered to constitutionally inad- position to actual pro- ensure notice of the equate. ceedings. required notice Such has been appeal, In the first circuits, concerns for- several our sister most nota- jewelry, feiture of certain bly items of Weng Second Circuit v. Unit- (2d Cir.1998). directed notice certified ed F.3d 709 the constitutional cededly fell short to recommend is much Though there contends, minimum. The the United standard actual recov- however, McGlory’s attempt to with federal dealing Attorney is by the detainees, barred pre- are not er the forfeited we prisoners laches, the District Court to bear doctrine of require pared the doctrine establishing agreed. We conclude ac- evidentiary burden when the considered laches should not be a demonstra- in all Such cases. tual notice If costs, is void. is whether litigation issue needless impose could tion seeking unreasonably delayed challenge McGlory process the due especially proper recovery property, of his the conclusion after years arises in a Moreover, issue is time to raise the Su- proceedings. initial *4 gov- recovery from the required the dem- in which he seeks has never preme Court events, will have to The District Court At all ernment. notice. of actual onstration such, avail- recovery is notice consider whether of constitutional jurisprudence the vacate that arises by a to actually what able motion not on focuses appropriately 60(b) McGlory P. Fed. R. Civ. occurred, procedures on the under rather but means. We proceed by to other notice was at- will have in place that were the District Court’s adequacy of therefore vacate Evaluating the tempted. was McGlory’s action that judgment consideration requires procedures these by laches. they occur. barred in which the context the circumstances sur- that We conclude I. government’s federal incar- rounding the time that This is the third forfeitures require greater ef- ceration of this have come before McGlory’s property than would be ensuring notice at forts Court, surrounding his arrest and the facts liberty at in soci- for individuals expected several times and detention are described prison, the relative one ety. When recently Reporter, most the Federal to effect difficulty the actu- McGlory, 202 F.3d United States v. reduced, ability of while the al notice is Cir.2000) (en (3d banc); also see United they receive no- that to ensure prisoners (3d $184,505.01, 72 F.3d 1160 However, suffers. to them tices directed Cir.1995); McGlory, United States and Weng the standard short of stop we Cir.1992) (upholding McGlo F.2d 309 focuses on the approach adopt sentence). We ry’s criminal conviction reasonably like- procedures extent story not describe this save therefore need this re- actual notice. Under ly to effect highlights. for the do obligations gime, government’s the Rather, hold that we end at the mailbox. 8, 1989, Pittsburgh police September On rely on direct if the wishes Enforcement Adminis- Drug officers and demonstrating mail, the bears burden McGlory for con- agents tration arrested receiving procedures possess heroin intent spiracy to deliver the were calculated ultimately He distribute. was convicted recipient. On this to the intended notice her- possess and distribute conspiracy record, whether such cannot determine we oin, of heroin with intent possession facility. McGlory’s system in place was distribute, firearm of a possession willWe therefore vacate felon, drug in a firearm convicted use for Court further remand to the District laundering drug trafficking operation, and sufficiency of findings factual on a life sentence. proceeds. He received notice. arrest, his officers On the date of used us, residences searched several now before In the second forfeiture numerous McGlory and items equip- seized certain electronic which concerns in this including, appeal, at issue ment, McGlory property, provided the notice con- set, color pro one Toshiba television two an- se motion pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. machines, swering 41(e), one Health Tech com- seeking return of all the property jewelry. In puter, and assorted that had been seized from him. The Dis Attorney ju- instituted civil trict Court dismissed the motion without against dicial forfeiture actions these items 6; 1997, prejudice January on and McGlory ap § under U.S.C. 881. promptly filed motion to reconsider the 41(e) denial of his motion. Shortly there McGlory Until was sentenced on Febru- after, he filed a motion to vacate 11, 1991, judg ary custody he was ments the two earlier proceedings. Service, United States Marshals and was Magistrate Judge to whom the case housed various detention facilities with assigned which it concluded initiating had contracted. constitutional jewelry, govern- violation occurred in the jewelry ment mailed notice forfeiture proceeding, of the action to but that there was a McGlory County care of the Ohio Jail in violation in concerning the Wheeling, Virginia, West where he was electronic equipment. Notwithstanding apparently being held at the time. conclusion, he recommended that this jail notice was received at Novem- claim be dismissed based on the doctrine signed ber 1990 and one of the (a) of laches because: had inex *5 jail’s officers. The also sent cusably delayed seeking recovery of the jail by notice to the regular mail and (b) property; delay and prejudi was by mailed notice certified mail to one of cial to government. Relying on the McGlory’s pre-incarceration residences. Magistrate Judge’s report, the District accepted. That letter was not Finally, the McGlory’s Court denied motion to vacate government sent notice to McGlory’s ex- judgments 23, September 1998. wife, by and to an attorney the name of McGlory timely filed a appeal. notice of Magann,1 published William and it notice The District jurisdiction Court had over general for three consecutive weeks in a proceedings forfeiture under 28 U.S.C. newspaper. circulation No one filed a 1331, 1345, 1355, §§ and and over the mo by claim or answer as directed the notice judgment tion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. seeking to those to contest the forfeiture. § jurisdiction 1331. We have to review A judgment default was in entered the District Court’s final order under 28 7, government’s January favor on 1991. § U.S.C. 1291. Our review over constitu government ultimately The jewel- sold the tional plenary, issues is see United States $9,950. ry for Computers Computer v. Various & Equip., also initiated forfeiture (3d Cir.1996), 82 F.3d as is our proceedings against the television set and review of legal components of the lach equipment, the other mailing the notice to issue, Express, es see Bermuda v. N.V. McGlory. govern- address used (Ex. U), Litsa Laurie 872 F.2d M/V ment sent McGlory’s also notice to mother (3d Cir.1989). Magann published notice newspaper. This was resolved II. government’s default in the 31,1990. May favor on The central issue in the appeal McGlory jewelry maintains that he never forfeiture is re whether ceived any pretrial and he was unaware of detainee is entitled to actual notice any of the forfeiture proceedings until De proceedings initiated 11, 1994, cember 1993. April On he filed a him.2 The District Court conclud- below, 1. represented claimed not does not contend that he McGlo- is, ry Magann in this matter. to know who and the precedents

2. The relevant in this area involve Trust, Co., 306, 70 S.Ct. jail via attempting service ed that which established L.Ed. 865 requirements constitutional mail satisfied evaluating adequacy re framework for primarily of notice. It for the service As de- process purposes. for due First, it looked to our notice two cases. upon lied Court, judg- $184,505.01, Supreme 72 scribed States opinion United one. “An ele- (3d Cir.1995), highly contextual McGlory ment is another requirement fundamental case, mentary and taught gov which which is process any proceeding due attempt service on must at least ernment finality accorded is notice place in the defendant an incarcerated circumstances, calculated, Second, under all the being detained. he is where pendency apprise parties interested 1996 WL v. United cited Herbert 1996), (E.D.Pa. opportu- afford them an with of the action and June aff'd (3d Cir.1996), objections.” Id. at nity present their F.3d 114 opinion, out added). A (emphasis 70 S.Ct. 652 prison notice to the declared that entity seeking give person incarcerated met was which the defendant means “such as one desirous employ Because it must requirements. process due might the absentee actually informing Her opinion, a published not affirmed Id. at reasonably adopt accomplish it.” our Internal precedential under bert is not See, 315, 70 652. e.g., United S.Ct. Operating Procedures. n. 11 Breyer, 41 F.3d framework, it is clear Under this (2000 ed.). The Cir.1994); § 6.2.1 IOP an incarcerated individual is the that when nevertheless reasoned District Court served, serving party must being one circuit, that, in this indicate the two cases prison where the attempt to effect service by mail to attempting service is, prison, er be found—that requirements.

jail process meets due *6 pre-incarceration address. See Robin specific never addressed We have 38, 40, Hanrahan, 409 93 S.Ct. son v. U.S. upon us now. urges claim that (1972) curiam). 30, (per L.Ed.2d 47 As 34 on pronouncement Our most recent recounted, Magistrate Judge’s report issue, McGlory, held which also involved this has ruled that notices other Court agency government than that the more involving McGlory must send notice pursuing the forfeiture they did at inadequate were 'not the detainee is actual facility at which to reach him where he was incarcer tempt rely and that it ly incarcerated $184,505.01,72 ated. See States v. United agency another to do so. See United (3d Cir.1995). F.3d 1160 McGlory, 202 F.3d 664 Cir. 2000) (en banc). turn consid We then to B. process requires due eration of whether argues prece that provide go further and that direct supports dent the conclusion actual an incarcerated defendant notice to always process require mail satisfies due it has initiated forfeiture whom Indeed, Supreme authority ments. Court proceedings. mailing that to the location where indicates usually party can be found suffices

A. Mullane, process purposes. due See 339 318, begins at 652. Mennonite perforce U.S. S.Ct. Our Adams, 791, Bank Missions v. 462 U.S. Mullane v. Hanover & Bd. Central required by judicial the notice the Due Pro- both and administrative forfeitures. between judicial Insofar and administrative as both situations. At all cess Clause in the two events, potential proceedings carry appeal presented in this sole- the issue owner, property rights affect the there ly concerns forfeitures. distinguish appear would be no reason to 2706, (1983), might reasonably 77 L.Ed.2d 180 sentee adopt S.Ct. to accom- “[njotice opined, it,” Mullane, mail or oth- the Court plish 339 U.S. at 70 S.Ct. er means certain to ensure actual notice 652, vary will under the circumstances. precondition is a constitutional minimum affect adversely C. property any or interests of liberty ... if

party its name and address Our sister circuits have differed on what reasonably govern- ascertainable.” The kind of notice is the constitutional mini- points language ment to this and to Tulsa mum for incarcerated individuals whose Pope, Collection Services v. subject Professional to forfeiture. United 108 S.Ct. 99 L.Ed.2d Clark, States v. 84 F.3d proposition for the Cir.1996), government’s involved the at- by direct suffices to its mail establish suc- tempt to serve notice of an administrative discharge obligations cessful of its forfeiture to a pre-trial detainee mailing McGlory under the Due Process Clause. it to the actually where he was (“We See id. at have S.Ct. held. The Tenth Circuit held that recognized repeatedly that mail service is notice met the process, demands of due inexpensive an and efficient mechanism party even actually served did not calculated to receive the mailed notice. See id. at 381. notice.”). actual In concluding that the notice was suffi- argument strong While this carries sur cient, the employed logic court similar to appeal, face ignores framework urged by the government pointed Mullane endorsing, decreed. Precedents Supreme to the Court’s indication in Men- mail meeting direct as means of constitu nonite Board Missions that mail ais requirements tional notice in certain con acceptable constitutionally form of notice. texts do mailings not establish that such See id. “We have found no suggest- case result in per se satisfaction of notice re ing that inadequate service mail is quirements. Adequacy always of notice is requiring personally evaluated reference to the surrounding party serve interested place at the Mullane, circumstances. See U.S. incarceration. We decline to create such 314, 70 S.Ct. 652. “The focus is on the requirement here.” Id. balance, and, reasonableness of the *7 however, appeals, Other of courts have clear, Mullane made a par itself whether In required Weng v. more. United ticular method of notice is de reasonable (2d Cir.1998), 137 F.3d 709 the Second pends particular on the circumstances.” requirement Circuit announced of actual Servs., Tulsa Collection Professional Weng notice. involved several administra- U.S. at 108 S.Ct. 1340. For example, notices, tive forfeiture one of which was Somers, Covey v. Town sent facility certified mail to the federal 146-47, 724, 100 76 S.Ct. L.Ed. at which the defendant was detained. See Supreme the Court held that notice id. at 714. court determined that incompetent sent an taxpayer to inad balancing analysis Mullane’s compelled equate, notwithstanding that the notice Noting importance prop- more. the of the Though was sent direct mail. the facts erty not, course, party interest stake to the notified Covey analogous are hand, inability rely and his on the others to vindi- case at that case’s disposition interests, 714-15, cate those stands see id. at the example impru as a stark of the court gleaning dence of from declared the interests and Supreme Court bur- precedent a on per se rule that mail will dens the other side of the scale were always be adequate proper pronounced. notice. The less least the “[A]t where effort at the giving custody very effort “such as owner is on the federal actually informing one desirous of charges justify the ab- a federal agency in- individual is an forfeiture, notice. When is no undue there seeking the govern- of the at a location insuring that the carcerated agency the hardship to ability government’s legally choosing, the the ment’s actually receive owner-prisoner him her with directly serve or 715. The to find Id. at notification.” required only zenith. Not in the at or near its disparity papers the is noted further court to find precautions know where ability government to take does the parties’ relative of notice. that he receipt equally can be sure prisoner’s person, the the it to ensure papers when the she be there or the owner is unable First, prisoner, aas Indeed, even the it can move delivered. the notice he will receive insure that a more convenient location person to it to office has delivered post the once the appears especially This entirely is so chooses. The owner institution. the here, where, pro- ongoing criminal case deliver on the institution dependent the Second, prisoner brought ceedings against the him. because mail to his face-to-face contact frequent into jailor prisoner of Prisons— Bureau owner’s —the attorneys. ... as of the same part is notice, the seeking give agency ability part, prisoner lacks For his probability all agent can in forfeiting mail is his steps to take to ensure cooperation Bureau’s secure the easily is to him. This dilemma actually delivered notice will be delivered assuring that the may be prisoner for a who especially acute record that a reliable the owner and compli- facility facility, transferred delivery will be created. service. cating to effect efforts Id. world, changes who an individual outside mail for- that, arrange can to have cir- under the addresses court concluded notify parties and can interested cumstances, to the warded merely sending address. While change actual as to the ensuring without detention steps, effec- may take similar prisoner notice “such prisoner is not delivery to may depend these measures actually informing tiveness of [the desirous of as one independent on factors adopt.” degree Id. some such might owner] forwarding Mullane, policies vis-á-vis the prison 339 U.S. at S.Ct. (quoting forewarning a 652). Instead, mail the amount of that when or the court held impending transfer. prisoner receives of an custody in federal is prisoner forfeiture, may not know prisoner also note that a basis We are the charges that changed he or she will be at the long institu- how “mailing of a notice to custodial forward- address, prison make notice is in adequate unless the tion is not problem of the same ing difficult. Shades recipient.” delivered to intended fact moved, Woodall, for a who Id.; also exist see also United (8th Cir.1993) (“[I]f facility. person If a at one but remains 794-95 building apartment lives where incarcerating prosecuting *8 the among im- of mail residents to distribution owner it elects property the missives, person has lost defending burden of leads to pose the additional or, recourse, through complaint pos- fair- some proceeding, fundamental are sibly, moving options the defen- elsewhere. Such surely requires that either ness necessarily prisoner. curtailed for the notice of dant or his counsel receive actual to in time to agency’s intent forfeit the and benefits of ad- The burdens relative agency the to compel decide whether to notice, to ensure steps ditional actual condemnation.”). proceed by therefore, greater suggest requiring govern- recites, assuring the the of efforts at Weng circumstances As words, citizens, In other appropriate. free ment greatly differ prisoners Weng ap- much to commend the evaluation there is potentially alters a fact Weng aspiration, as an to proach, calculated steps reasonably of what of the sort of An comports overly rule with our ideas served. strict notice require- ment, government therefore, that the should under- effort unsettling could lead to take when it wishes to effect notice of a completed the outcome of proceeding against prisoner nothing based on allegations but bare of a hand, custody. Weng the other federal On party who property. had lost federal, prisoner involved a held in a rath- state, facility. than a

er As the Seventh More importantly, Weng ap observed, prophylactic “[t]he Circuit has proach procedural undermines the rule, notice, Weng requiring actual be- that has heretofore Supreme animated the gov- comes less reasonable as the federal Court’s on subject. dictates ernment exercises less control over the Court has employed never an actual notice detainee.” Donovan v. United Rather, standard in jurisprudence. its its *2 1999 WL at Cir. always focus has procedures been on the 1999). Feb.2, rejoinder argu- to this See, place to e.g., effect notice. Mennonite that, though ment was held Missions, 799-800, Bd. at U.S. facility, pursuant a state he was held his S.Ct. 2706.3 We think this appropri focus charges, arrest federal contract- Thus, ate. adopt while we will not ing pre-trial with state facilities to house rule, Weng animating Weng concerns detainees, government the federal has will inform proce our as to the decision ability procedures to demand that will al- designed give dures hold notice. We delivery low the adequate notice for that, while the prove need not prisoners. actual notice to the if prisoner, it chooses rely notice, on less than actual it bears attractive, Though Weng rule does the burden demonstrating .the existence present problems. difficulty The real procedures that are calculat Weng requiring rule lies not in ed to ensure that such notice given. will be government to demonstrate actual Thus, requires our rule evidentiary but rather burden that proper procedures ensure that such a are em impose standard could after the ployed the facilities where it passage temporal of time. chooses to gap Given course, prisoners.4 house its may Of there is separate forfeiture from a due signed receipt from the process challenge proceedings, party, to the it is served easy imagine does not then proof prove situations which have delivery anything procedures of notice be unavail- about the that were able, properly place.5 even if such notice

3. presented It is trae that Tulsa dence was Collection handled Professional 478, 485, Pope, by opening Services v. 108 S.Ct. certified mail to inmates the let- and, speaks presence 99 L.Ed.2d checking in terms ters in their after contraband, requiring giving directly “actual notice” to those with a the contents liberty pro- interest stake in a them. See id. at 1315. Under these circum- however, ceeding. opinion, stances, That also de- the court concluded that sufficient acceptable given. scribes mail service as an means notice was id. at See 1316. providing actual notice. See id. at view, therefore, S.Ct. 1340. In our "actual approach apply prob- 5.Our would also to the rale, employed notice” is not as a but rather prisoner. lem of the relocated Just as the goal against aas which various forms of ef- government can monitor whether mail reach- fecting actual notice are evaluated. facility, similarly es a within a can *9 ensure that mail will follow an inmate who is ruling analogous approach facility 4. Our to the transferred from one to another. See States, by generally taken the Ninth Circuit in United v. v. United Small 136 F.3d 1334, (9th Cir.1998). (D.C.Cir.1998) Property, (deeming Real 135 F.3d 1312 1337 notice case, require inadequate jail In that the court declined to notice sent to and re- when actual notice to a forfeiture when defendant turned absent indication that effort to find resending notice was sent certified mail to the would be burdensome awaiting government); in which he was held trial and v. evi- U.S. Armendariz-Mata

156 (9th Cir.1999); Clymore not v. United did make 1216 the District Court

Because (10th 569, States, n. 164 573 5 Cir. place F.3d procedures on the sort findings D.E.A., 1999); For v. Asset McGlory was Muhammed facility at which (8th Unit, 648, 654 Cir. 92 F.3d procedures these and whether housed feiture 1996); v. Barrera-Montenegro United reasonably calculated to ensure were (5th Cir.1996); 657, McGlory, 661 addressed F.3d once Giraldo, 509, him upon arrival at the F.3d reach would still (1st Cir.1995). (and indeed, only accepted would But see United States prison (6th actually we will present), Dusenbery, were 201 F.3d Cir. ruling 2000) as to the Court’s rath (treating vacate the District forfeiture as voidable D.E.A., and remand for further jewelry void); Boero v. er than opinion. (2d Cir.1997) (same). consistent with proceedings Kist, we light of our decision Gold III. view. majority are in accord with the re In the forfeiture a of a summons Gold Kist service involved television and other garding the Toshiba that did not complaint a manner equipment, electronic Pennsylvania law. See Gold conform jail. McGlory in attempt made no to serve Kist, in that 756 F.2d at 18. Defendants therefore, process purposes, due For en- challenged judgment action the default clearly inadequate. attempted notice Citing R. P. against tered them. Fed. Civ. con concedes the Though 60(b)(4), we declared that default “[a] notice, it deficiency of its con stitutional when has been no judgment entered there tends, agreed, that and the District Court is, complaint fortiori, proper service of a judgment on McGlory’s motion to vacate void, and should be set aside.” Id. at 19. by the doctrine precluded this forfeiture is ser- complaint’s improper Because disagree. of laches. We vice, entry judg- of default as well as expiration ment before the of the time for A. answer, id., filing an see the Gold Kist The District Court treated McGlo considering other fac- panel refrained ry’s arising as under Federal Rule motion justify setting tors that could also 60(b), Procedure but concluded Civil judgment, of a default see id. aside gov improper given by notice logic applies Though here. ernment of the forfeiture ren same judgments, applied against expressed we understand the concern dered “void,” him, Dusenbery pro pris- than Circuit that a “voidable” rather Sixth 60(b)(4). rights R. We claimant could on his or her vided Fed. Civ. P. oner sit gen think this conclusion incorrect. As a until after the of the statute of passage matter, entry eral we have held that the limitations for the to reinitiate judgment proper proceeding, Dusenbery, a service a see 201 F.3d at default without judgment renders that void. we conclude that this concern can be complaint Kist, Co., means, Laurinburg Inc. v. other id. at 769 See Gold Oil addressed see (3d Cir.1985). Inc., (Cole, J., dissenting). explain be- 756 F.2d As we low, majority holding of courts of to consider that the forfeiture appeals prior proceeding McGlory’s property the fate of a was void does ruling to a requirements agree equate that violated notice he is entitled monetary proper that a issued no return relief without 60(b) potential government, tice to a claimant is void. See from the because Rule a claim return of Marolf, States v. 173 F.3d motion is not for the United Justice, D.E.A., Dep’t jail notice to returned undelivered and sender 82 F.3d Cir.1996) inquiry). (holding inadequate made no further

157 (D.D.C.1975) 60(b) (describing Rule cod- have to as McGlory will therefore property. equitable of gaining his ification of methods proceedings to recover further pursue judgments). relief from it in these and is property, may invoke defenses that the light ruling judgment In of our McGlory’s alleged predicated on that are against McGlory equip- the electronic delay. void, however, pas- forfeiture is no ment nullity time can a into a sage of transmute B. judgment, and hence binding there is no ruled limit a It true The District Court time for such motion. is was barred McGlory’s motion to vacate that the text of the rule dictates doctrine of “a the doctrine of laches. The motion will be made within reasonable 60(b). invoked equity, laches hails from and is time.” See Fed. R. P. Howev- Civ. er, exist: inex nearly overwhelming authority two essential elements exists suit, preju delay instituting and for the that there are no time proposition cusable from such resulting regards challenge to the defendant limits with to a to a void dice nullity; Teamsters Pen as delay. judgment See Central Penn. because of its status a Line, Inc., Dray Fund v. McCormick thus laches is no bar to recourse to Rule sion Cir.1996). (3d 60(b)(4). 1098, We con v. Corp. F.3d 1108 See Hertz Alamo Rentr- 85 (11th A-Car, Inc., 1126, incorrect that the District Court was 16 F.3d 1130-31 clude Cir.1994) cases); (collecting Briley laches McGlo v. Hi- applied to have (5th 246, Cir.1993); dalgo, 981 F.2d 249 ry’s motion. Co., Katter v. Arkansas La. Gas 765 F.2d vacate McGlory’s motion was to (8th Cir.1985); 730, 734 re Center him judgments against and the forfeiture (9th Wholesale, Inc., 1440, 759 F.2d 1448 above, treated, arising is as discussed Cir.1985); Leasing, Vaughn, Inc. v. Misco 60(b). R. It is under Fed. Civ. P. under (10th 257, Cir.1971); F.2d 260 Austin may why the District have standable Court Smith, 337, (D.C.Cir.1962); 312 F.2d v. applied. thought that the doctrine of laches Safety Manufacturing Moore v. Positive 60(b) equitable A motion under Rule (E.D.Pa.1985); Co., 49, see 107 F.R.D. nature, to believe that so it is reasonable Co., v. 783 F.2d Region also Rodd Constr. apply. Assmann equitable doctrines See (“[T]he (7th Cir.1986) reasonable (8th Fleming, 159 Cir. v. F.2d 60(b) time of Rule relates criterion 1947) (“The proceeding by motion to va limit be judgments, void means no time suit judgment independent cate a is not an judgment at judgment a void cause equity legal remedy a court but omitted). all.”) (citation quotation law; in character yet equitable the relief is agree passage that no upon We equitable and must be administered valid, Assocs., judgment time can render a void principles.”); see also Winfield cognizance take of a may always a court Stonecipher, Inc. W.L. Cir.1970) (“Rule 60(b) whenever a Rule spe judgment’s ... void status 60(b) brought. address motion is Without cifically preserves right to attack 60(b) to bar a Rule ing any ac other reason judgment by independent equitable an void,6 Brown, judgment as tion.”); that attacks a In re 68 F.R.D. motion appear to be a McGlory’s delay date. Nor does this vis-á-vis earlier 6. We also note that (as McGlory inquir- in which can be accused attacking judgment opposed situation 60(b) bring ability having waived his Rule ing disposition property, an into the of his motion, us) previously clearly not launch not as he did not before issue that is 60(b) judgments. prompt- that he Rule attack He maintains unreasonable. Cf. Tyler, 120 F.3d 23-24 sought judgments against Beller & Keller ly relief from the 1997) (acknowledging that can laches and the Cir. once he learned of them in him validity, suggest give but factfindings indi- a void made no District Court untimely ing when the judgments a motion cate that learned *11 158 may beyond not be relief setting prior judg-

we hold that laches used to aside ment); preclude such a motion. Misco Leas- Douglas United States v. A- One Cf. (“The (11th say at 260 cases that a ing, Aircraft, F.2d 26B 662 F.2d validity Cir.1981) (same). judgment acquires void as the In order to obtain such part relief, result of laches of the adverse McGlory may have to look else- party. are not asked to consider We where. any particular

whether under circum- It pursuit of his remedies that 60(b) may stances a movant under Rule be McGlory’s delay, any, will become an estopped precluded filing or from such a Though issue. the vacatur of the earlier motion.”) (footnote omitted). judgment powerful weapon will be a effort, McGlory in such it will not de- C. cide the issue. would have to act Though we hold that laches is not avail- within .legal the confines of whatever preclude attacking able to a claimant from legal equita- framework surrounds the or judgment, holding a void our is not to be remedy ble pursue. he elect to At allowing petitioner construed sit on time, the District Court consider rights. his or her It is true that if a court applies, whether the doctrine of laches or prior judgment is able to determine that a six-year whether the statute of limitations void, such, it is indeed should declare it as for suits the federal government is but that does not mean that other reme- 2401(a). applicable. § See 28 U.S.C. It dies, such as the actual return property appear would ap- federal statute value, or its cash immune from defens- plies, see Menkarell v. Bureau Narcot- words, es of In other waiver laches. we (3d ics, Cir.1972) 463 F.2d (applying potential prejudice conclude six-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. delay arises from such is best dealt with 2401(a) § in attempt to recover forfeited 60(b) outside of the Rule context. property), even if action is character- McGlory unreasonably delayed Whether see, equitable, e.g., ized as Blassingame v. seeking recovery of his property gen- (2d Secretary Navy, eral, which is the laches issue considered Cir.1987) (“[T]he merger law equity and Court, the District is matter distinct 2401(a) assured that section covers both from whether the that forfeited actions.”). legal equitable not, was void. That is how- ever, a matter that If the is before this Court. District Court concludes laches only reviewing anyway, We are the denial of to be in order it will have McGlory’s motion to vacate. Even interplay if he determine the between laches motion, prevails on this limitations, does not mean and the relevant giv statute of any monetary that he is ing entitled to relief consideration to the cases that indicate or relief in the form of a of prop- transfer that if a brought suit is within the statuto 60(b) erty. It been ry has held that Rule period, generally laches would un See, does not for such remedies. See e.g., available. Central Penn. Team United States One 1961 Red Chevrolet sters Pension Fund v. Dray McCormick Sedan, Line, Impala Inc., 457 F.2d 1356-57 85 F.3d Cir. Cir.1972) (holding 1996); that monetary remedy Henry v. United 46 F.2d forfeiture, (3d Cir.1931) (‘While for void depends on waiv- there is no er sovereign immunity, lies not equity, Rule statute of limitations in yet gen 60(b) 1346(a)); § but in 28 law, U.S.C. see erally also this respect follows the $119,980.00, 106, will, United States v. 680 F.2d in the absence of special extenuating (11th Cir.1982) 60(b) 107-08 (holding Rule regard circumstances ... delay may not be used impose affirmative inexcusable and refuse relief after the time vacate). challenge

voidness is raised on a successive motion to However, far as it relates to No. 98-3578. particu in that limitations the statute of also Ikeli see locality expired.”); has dis- respectfully lar I dissent the court’s *12 238 150 onwu United part II of position of No. 98-3579 and from Cir.1998) laches (declining to invoke court, which an opinion adopts of the forfeited to recover when suit interpretation process of due that has no Also, statutory period). within brought Supreme in prior basis decisions of doctrines of it considers the insofar or our circuit. Court have to will also District Court equity, the asserting the party consider whether question The before us is not whether it hands. clean See of laches has defense good policy require gov would be to Marolf, 173 F.3d pro to proceedings ernment forfeiture Cir.1999) to reverse (refusing parties by to some vide notice interested rejection of laches defense court’s district Rather, to the mail. superior means “inexplicable government’s light of question whether the com is remedy” improper an adminis to fail[ure] requirements plied with minimum of proper or initiate trative notice by sending notice the Due Process Clause proceedings). (return to by receipt requested) mail authority foregoing We reference McGlory he was de at the where but any view on the merits express not to precedent, Supreme tained. Under Court the Dis- only important issues that flag met standards. The Su this constitutional to consider appear did not trict Court preme repeatedly has referred Court events, we of laches. At all analysis its by of notice mail as sufficient the service issues of inexcusable ruling make no satisfy requirements the minimum have us is the delay because all we before See, process. e.g., Tulsa Collec due Prof'l held, vacate, and, we have motion 478, 490, tion Services v. Pope, apply does not such laches (1988); L.Ed.2d 565 108 S.Ct. judg- Finally, ruling motion. Adams, Bd. Missions v. Mennonite equipment ment the electronic 791, 800, 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d void, U.S. 103 S.Ct. opinion offer as to whether is we (1983) (“Notice prohibited reiniti- mail or other means ating the forfeiture action to ensure actual notice is as certain passage if the of the relevant statute or precondition to a minimum constitutional The District limitations has been tolled. adversely affect the proceeding which will the issue have to consider Court will part liberty property interests [a] or attempt to reiniti- should the y....”).1 proceedings. ate such acknowledges majority seemingly judgment of the District Court addressee’s mail sent service for vacated and the case remanded constitutionally ade- address is current consistent with further contexts, other but quate almost all opinion. majority not be holds that such ALITO, Judge, concurring and Circuit pris- to a detainee or sufficient when sent dissenting: to, it that mail sent Why? Why is oner. long-term-occupancy say, inexpensive join opinion I III of the parts

I under all the calculated judgment inso- hotel and concur in the the court person who known mailed to a was held taxes was only occasion has the Court 1. On one alone, incompetent, and had no lived addressee's to be that notice mail sent to the state, and no guardian, in the constitutionally ade- no relatives not correct address was Somers, help her with person who was able to Covey U.S. other quate. v. Town Thus, 146-47, 724. Id. at 76 S.Ct. her taxes. 76 S.Ct. L.Ed. holding hardly supports majority’s process violated Somers that due Court held delinquent here. where notice of foreclosure any And it can new rule will apprise an interested circumstances court, of a action pendency not have retroactive effect. A party jail prison may Clause, or mail sent to interpreting but lacks Due Process is a answer must be there be? The flexibility. such probability that mail significantly higher I have three additional observations will reach the address- to such hotels sent First, majority’s about the decision. al- jail mail sent to a than is the case with ees only though formally applies the decision is the evidence that prison. But where to notices of forfeiture sent the federal *13 majority studiously avoids this is so? The in persons custody on fed- very good that point the reason this —for logic any charges, eral its extends to for- whatsoever this effect has evidence any feiture in cus- persons notices sent adduced, majority in by McGlory, the been tody. If notice of a federal forfeiture case, any opinion or other by per- that is mail to a sent systemic prob- I am aware. Such facility charges son a state on federal exist; know; may I don’t may lems or reasonably is not all the calculated under my colleagues I that do either. doubt apprise person circumstances to evidence, But such there is no without the of the federal pendency forfeiture majority’s for the logical basis decision. proceeding, notice of a state forfeiture It well be that it would be advisable by proceeding that is sent mail to another legislative rulemaking or for those person held in the same on state the authority require charges cannot be calculated notice forfeiture cases to better person pendency to inform that required by than is the minimum standard Thus, proceeding. the state forfeiture by process. Congress imposed due has majority’s logical decision has broad recently concern the fair- manifested about sweep. procedures ness of federal the Civil Asset Forfeiture Re- has enacted Second, majority’s regard- standard 106-185, form Act of Pub.L. No. 114 ing adequacy handling of mail proce- remedy problems Stat. open-ended dures is left and will almost Act, however, that it found. This does not certainly litigation. lead to confusion and be require provid- notice decision, majority’s Under the mail, than ed some means better mail to a detainee or satisfies due Congress perhaps but should consider process only facility’s if the mail handling question. Congress capability— has the procedures at in question the time were plainly which the federal courts lack—to reasonably calculated to ensure investigate whether notice of forfeiture Maj. notice reached the addressee. See sent mail fails to reach the addressee in Op. p. prac- 155. What mean in does this (The significant number of cases. mere poli- tical terms? Must there a written be fact that and a handful of other cy? sign receipt? Must the addressee prisoners federal and detainees have May delivery of the mail be entrusted to they claimed that did not receive notice prisoners? other or detainees Must the hardly sent mail to their facilities is personal- mail be handed to the addressee enough to show the existence of a serious ly? litigation One or more rounds of will problem.) Congress also ability has the certainly required almost be to answer specifically craft a rule that is targeted to these questions. and related any deal with problem finds to exist. It Third, although majority at- specify any can the addressees to which has applies e.g., tempted such to devise a rule that will not persons rule all — only impose evidentiary whom provided, notice is those undue burden custody, only custody judgments cases in which forfeiture those federal charges, only sought proper those federal facilities. to be vacated for lack of may well decision majority’s As to administer. difficult prove quite noted, mail han- majority’s

previously attempting to murky, and standard is

dling followed at procedures were what

establish at the numerous points past

various in which federal federal facilities

state and held prisoners have been

detainees and majority’s easy. And

may not be state detainees and is extended to

decision logic requires, I think

prisoners, as magnified.

problem process was sat-

I hold that due would legislative or leave it to the

isfied and whether processes to decide

rulemaking *14 requirements should

additional notice in forfeiture cases.

imposed INCORPORATED,

ZENECA,

Plaintiff-Appellant, SHALALA, in her official ca E.

Donna Secretary and Hu

pacity of Health Henney, M.D., Services;

man Jane Drug the Food and

Commissioner of

Administration, Defendant-Appellees, Pharmaceuticals, Sicor

Gensia

Incorporated, Movant-

Appellee.

No. 99-2329. Appeals, Court of

Fourth Circuit.

Argued: April May

Decided: