Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01729/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01729-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Litchfield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1729

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

James D. Litchfield, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2005

Filed: February 28, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James D. Litchfield appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for return

of property. In his February 2004 motion Litchfield alleged that, incident to his

March 18, 2003 arrest, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized

$3,222 in cash from him. He argued that the cash should be returned because it was

no longer needed as evidence and it was not the proceeds of any illegal activity or

crime, but rather it represented wages from employment. The government responded

that Litchfield’s motion should be dismissed because the cash had been

administratively forfeited. The district court summarily denied Litchfield’s motion.

Litchfield timely moved for reconsideration, but the district court denied

Appellate Case: 04-1729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2005 Entry ID: 1872261 
-2-

reconsideration as well. In both his response to the government and in his motion for

reconsideration, Litchfield questioned the adequacy of the government’s service of

forfeiture papers. We interpret this as a due process challenge.

Although the district court could not review the merits of the administrative

forfeiture, see Muhammed v. DEA, 92 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 1996) (courts may not

review merits of forfeiture), the court could consider a due process attack on the

administrative forfeiture, see United States v. Woodall, 12 F.3d 791, 793-94 (8th Cir.

1993), abrogated in non-pertinent part by Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161,

172-73 & n.3 (2002). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for consideration of

Litchfield’s due process challenge. We also deny Litchfield’s motion to supplement

his reply brief.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2005 Entry ID: 1872261