History
  • No items yet
midpage
Yale Simons v. United States
480 F.2d 805
9th Cir.
1973
Check Treatment

*1 HUFSTEDLER, Aрpeals, of Before CARTER and United States Court Fifth Circuit. Judges, PREGERSON,* Circuit and Judge. 21, District Feb. 1973. CARTER, Judge JAMES M. Circuit (dissenting): majority following The has made the Mayo Jones, pro Ottis se. order: pro Gertrude Bales, se. “The cаuse is remanded the to district Woolf, Knoxville, Tenn., Louis C. and purpose court for the limited its of Ga., John E. Atlanta, Dougherty, for answering following question: the Waggoner. Cheatham and dismissing ‘petition’ “In the for lack of Stokes, Jr., Atty., John W. U. S. and jurisdiction, ‘peti- did deem the the court Beverly Bates, B. Atty., U. S. Asst. At- tion’ a theretofore ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍amended to state lanta, Ga., Kirksey Taylor. for and (28 claim under Act the Tucker § U.S.C. 1346(а)(2)), by petitioner- requested GEWIN, Before as COLEMAN and plaintiff Judges. in MORGAN, his memorandum filed March Circuit 17, 1971?” PER CURIAM: futility. The in ordеr is an exercise judgment The of the district court is intrigued by majority apparently The is affirmed on the of the basis reasons stat- prospect the on of a constitutional attack and ed order, authorities cited in the final governing present the forfeiture statutes Bales, N.D.Ga.1972, Jonеs v. 58 of automobiles. F.R.D. 453. appellant in United The filed the “petition” a a for District Court

States оf an automobile. remission of forfeiture respond- named as The United States was party Aрpellant to thé not a ent. was agreement security on the car was but Plaintiff, SIMONS, Yale promis- оf a an endorser accommodation v. sory paying the off Later, note. after UNITED of America, STATES subrogated note, to the he claimed be to Defendant. to car. title the No. 71-2263. сourt, on the Govern- The district Appeals, United States Court of motion, for the action dismissed mеnt’s Ninth Circuit. jurisdiction. lack of July 19, 1973. reply petitioner in a memorandum ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍The Phoenix, A. Alexander Ariz. Katz, requеsted the had in the district court . (argued), plaintiff for reliance on pleading to show amended be 1346(a)(2). Act, U.S.C. (argued), 28 § Michael B. the Tucker Scott William C. such, to amend made Lee, was Atty., motiоn, as Smitherman, No U. S. N. Warner * * Harry Pregerson, 18, Cir.; Enterprises, United States Honorable Rule 5 Inc. Isbell Judge, оf Cali- Casualty Company District District Central v. Citizens of New designation. fornia, sitting by al., Cir., 1970, 409, York et 5 431 F.2d I. Part *2 806 urges jurisdic- “petition”.

the He here we would still have to affirm under the above, support tion under that Act to his claim. authoritiеs in or take the case banc to them. overrule correctly dismissed The district court jurisdictiоn. poorest possible for Unlike is lack of most This the case an for eases, hearing. petition the Government is not in The forfeiture banc was one plaintiff. the for remission of in form fоrfeiture the ordinarily proper filed the with adminis- now, or need not determine when We 11, agenсy. Contrary trative to Rule us, to the the case comes back whether Procedure, Fed. Rules of Civil neither Act, upon Tucker 28 court relied the “petition” peti- the nor the “amended 1346, the for dismissal of action. U.S.C. § by attorney. signed No tion” was motion, an Circuit, where law this even Under the of such, as to ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍was made amend. plaintiff in the ac- the tion, is the Government obviating right any problеm the question peti- of There is a as to serious standing the under Tucker to Act, the Government tо for- sue tioner’s contest the squarely party hold that there cases the our He not a tо secur- feiture. ity was grant jurisdiction the to in court is no the document under which car was requested. guarantor v. only United States the relief of a financed. He was 42; (9 1950), F.2d promissory complains 181 Andrаde Cir. a note. Petitioner 1962), (9th Bride Cir. pro- v. United States of lack of of the forfeiture noticе 470, 474, v. ceedings. and United States 308 F.2d not be should The Government Mustang 1972), (9 Cir. Ford to required One 1967 to title ascеr- make a search Wag- v. someone, party United States 457 F.2d 931. See to a not a tain whethеr (9 1970), agreement 627. ner 434 F.2d security Cir. under for- on a car proceedings, receive no- should fеiture in other circuits which There are cases proceedings. of those tice Act, the Tucker 28 § hold that U.S.C. jurisidction 1346, for an action provides 1967 Ford v. One In United States mitigate against Judge Ely rеjected a to a Mustang, the Government supra, pro- v. One 1961 United States forfeiture. on forfeiture attack constitutional (5 stated, Impala citing Cir. Red Sedan Chevrolet cases and cedures after juris (Tucker Act 1972), F.2d 1353 457 not that we should “We are convinced Government); by the fore- ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍diction conceded or hurdle the to undertake breach (3 think, Cir. authority. of Narcotics going v. Bureau Nor, Menkarell we of wall 88, authority 1972), v. United and Jaekel 463 F.2d which the can override we F.Supр. Attorney (S.D.N.Y.1969), 993. 304 Congress delegated the States has to proceed- in the Circuit. none Ninth respect We can find to remission in General at 457 F.2d ings like these.” in cases court, to in answer if the district Evеn 932. order, the posed it in question to the and judgment affirmed petition amend- should be it the The deemed states that Act, put Tucker rest. under the the case to ed a to claim state

Case Details

Case Name: Yale Simons v. United States
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Published: Jul 19, 1973
Citation: 480 F.2d 805
Docket Number: 71-2263
Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.