### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 15, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14417 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5
- 0 0 3 1 4
- CV
- O C- 1 0
- G RJ E L W O O D J . C O O P E R , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s U .S . D E P A R T M E N T O F T R E A S U R Y , D R U G E N F O R C E M E N T A G E N C Y , A s s e t a n d F o r f

e itu r e S e c tio n , U .S . D E P A R T M E N T O F P R O B A T I O N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E l w oo d J. C oo per, a pro se fe dera l pri soner c urre nt l y s er vi ng a l i fe se nt ence f orc oc a i ne - tr a f

f i c ki ng of

f e ns e s , a ppe al s the di s m i s s a l of hi s c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng thatthe U ni t ed S t at es P robat i on O ff i ce (“ U S P O ”) , the A ss etand F orfe itu re D i vi s i on of

the D rug E nf

or c e m e ntA ge nc y ( “ D E A ” ) , a nd the D e pa r t m e ntof the T r e a s u r y v io la te d th e P r iv a c y A c t, 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 2 e , b y f a ilin g to r e s p o n d to h is
r e que s tt o c or r e c thi s pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I” ) a nd doc um e nt a t i on
r e ga r di ng f

or f e i t e d m oni e s . T h e di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d C oope r ’ s c om pl a i nt p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h r e l i e f c o u ld b e g r a n te d
. O n appe a l , Coop e ra r gu e s the di s tr i c tc ou r t ’ s r e a s on i ng f ordi s mi s s a l w as
er ro n eo u s. T h e d istrict co u rt o rd er ed (1 ) d ism issa l w ith o u t p re ju d ice o f C o o p er ’s cl ai m a ga i ns t the U SP O f or e r r or s i n hi s PS I be c a us e the c l a i m s ho ul d have been
ra i se d i n the se nt enci ng court or on di re ct appeal , and ( 2) di sm i ss al w i th p re judi ce of C oo per’ s c l ai m s a gai nstthe D E A and t he D epar t m ent o f th e T reas ury a s bar re d by re s j ud i ca t a. In a f

oo tno t e, the di stri ctcourtal so ci t ed t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 91 5(g), th e “th r e e s tr ik e ru le ,” a n d to o k ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f C o o p e r ’s p r io rc iv il r ig h ts
a c t i ons , s t a t i ng “ P l a i nt i f f c a nnoti ni t i a t e a nothe rc i vi l r i ght s a c t i on w i thoutpa y i ngWe DENY Cooper ’s “Motion for L eaveto File Supplemental Authority to His Initial 1 Brief a nd/or Tra nsfer Venuein the Alternative.” After de novo re view, weareunpersua ded by Cooper’s a dditional argument that the 2 district court lacke d jurisdiction be cause his c laim w as filed pursuant to Middle District of Florida L ocal Rule 1.03(e ), and he had not yet filed an application to procee d in f orma pauperis. Cf. Palmer v. Braun, 376 F .3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2004) (re viewing de novo whether the district court ha d 3 t h e $ 2 5 0. 00 f

i l i ng f e e ors how i ng tha the i s unde ri m m i ne ntda nge rof s e r i ous p h y s ic a l in

ju r y .” A f

te rc a r e f u l r e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m in p a r t a n d d is m is s in p a r t. 1 W e r e vi e w de novo a di st ri ctc our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s a l of a c om pl a i ntf

or f a ilu r e to s ta te a c la im p u r s u a n t to § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) . S e e L e a l v . G a . D e p ’t o f C o r r s ., 2 5 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 7 8
- 7 9 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t r e s ju d ic a ta
a ppl i e s i s a pur e que s t i on of l a w tha tw e r e vi e w de novo. S e e N or f ol k S
. C orp. v. C hevr on , U
. S. A
. , I nc . , 37 1 F. 3d 12 85 , 12 88 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 04 )
. M or e ov e r , w e “ m ay
a f f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o n d i f f e r e n t g r o u n d s a s lo n g a s th e ju d g m e n t e n te r e d is
c or r e c ton a ny l e ga l gr ound r e ga r dl e s s of the gr ounds a ddr e s s e d, a dopt e d or
r e j e c t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . ” S e e C a l h o un v. L i l l e na s P ubl ’ g, 298 F
. 3d 1228, 12 30 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). Fi r s t , Co o p e r a r g u e s th a t th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y f i n d i n g th a t th e c l a i m he assert ed u n d er t h e P ri v acy A ctag ai n stth e U S P O -- a ch al l en g e t o al l eg e d l y fal se i nf or m a t i on, pr ovi de d t o the U S P O b y the D E A a nd us e d t o de t e r m i ne the forf ei ture a m ou ntand t o enh ance hi s s ent ence , i n t he P S I
-- sh o ul d h ave been
ra i se d atse nt enci n g o r on di re ctappeal
. S ec t i on 19 15 A (b)( 1) st at es thata c ou rt 2s u

b j ec tm att er

j uri s d i ct i o n ). L o ca lR

u l e 1
. 0 3 (e ) s t at es th e f

o l l o wi n g: The Cl erk shall acc ept for filing all prisoner cases filed with or without the re quired fi lin gfe e or

a pp lic atio n to proc e e d in

fo rm a pa up e ri s. Ho we ve r, a priso ne r c a sewi ll be subjec t to dism issal by the Court, sua sponte, if the filingfeeis not paid or if the application is not filed within 30 days of the commenc ement of theaction. M.D. Fla
. L ocal R. 1.03(e)
. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, however, the “cour t shall revie w, bef

ore do c ke tin g , if

fe a sib leor , in

any e ve nt, a s so on

a s p ra c tic a

blea ft e r doc ke tin g , a

c omp la int

in a c ivi l action in wh ic h a p ris o n e r s e e k s r e dr e s s f r o m a g o v e r

nmental e nti ty o r o f

f ic e r o r e mp lo yee of

a g ov e rnme ntal e nti ty .”28 U. S.C. § 1 91 5A (a) ( e mph a sis add e d) . T hu s, wh e n Co op e r f ile d h is complaint, whether

or not ac companied w ith an application to proce ed in forma pauperis, the district c ourt imm e diate ly

ha d ju ri sdic tio n to re view thec omp lai nt to deci dewh e ther i t w a s r e qu ir e d to dismiss it under § 1915A(b)
. 4 s h a ll d is m is s th e c o m p la in t o ra n y p o r tio n o f it if it is “f r iv o l o u s , m a l i c io u s , o rf a ils t o st at e a cl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef m ay b e g ra n ted. ” 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 91 5A (b)( 1). B e c a us e the l a ngua ge o f § 1 9 1 5 A ( b) ( 1) tr a c ks the l a ngua ge of F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 12 (b)( 6), w e vi ew th e al l egat i on s i n t he com pl ai ntas true. S ee M i t chel l v. F ar ca ss , 11 2 F
. 3d 14 8 3 , 1 49 0 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( ho l di ng thatw e r evi ew de no vo the di sm i ss al o f a com pl ai ntfor f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m un der § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) a p p ly in g th e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s a d is m is s a l u n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P 12 (b)( 6)). P u r s u a n t t o th e P r iv a c y A c t, “[ w ]h e n e v e ra n y a g e n c y . . . f a ils to m a in ta in
a ny r e c or d c onc e r ni ng a ny i ndi vi d u al
. . . the i ndi vi dua l m a y br i ng a c i vi l a c t i on
a ga i ns tthe a ge nc y , a nd the di s tr i c tc our t s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s s ha l l ha ve ju r is d ic tio n in th e m a t te r s u n d e rth e p r o v is io n s o f th is s u b s e c tio n .” 5 U .S .C . §5

522a ( g) ( 1) ( C )
. T o s t a t e a c l a i m unde rthe P r i va c y A c t , a pl a i nt i ff m us ts how : ( 1) the go vernm entfa i l ed t o ful fi l l i t s r ec ord-keepi ng ob l i gat i on ; (2) the fa i l ure pr oxi m a t e l y c a us e d a n a dve r s e de t e r m i na t i on; ( 3) the f a i l ur e t o m a i nt a i n r e c or ds
w a s i nt e nt i ona l orw i l f ul ; a nd ( 4) the p l ai n t i f f s uf f e r e d a c tua l da m a ge s . P e r r y v. B urea u o f P ri sons, 37 1 F
. 3d 13 04 , 13 05 (11 th C ir. 200 4) (c i t i ng R ose v. U ni t ed S t at es , 90 5 F
. 2d 12 57 , 12 59 (9t h C i r. 19 90 ))
. I n h i s c o mp l a i n t , Co o p e r a s s e r t e d th a t th e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t ’ s r e l i a n c e on di s put e d i nf

or m a t i on i n the P S I re s ul t e d i n a n “ a dve r s e de t e r m i na t i on, ” na m e l y , the im p r o p e re n h a n c e m e n t o f h is s e n te n c e . N o ta b ly , h e r a is e d n o c h a lle n g e to th e f a c ts of the P S I w he n i tw a s pr e pa r e d o r p ri o rt o i m pos i t i on of hi s s e nt e nc e on J une 19, 1 9 9 8
. N o r d o es h e p ro v i d e an y ex p l an at i o n fo r w h y h e d i d n o t , o r co u l d n o t , rai se th is a r g u m e n t th e n . B a s e d o n o u rth o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , w e r e a d ily
c onc l ude C oope rc a nnotr a i s e the i ns t a nta r gum e nt , a tthi s l a t e da t e , i n the c ont e xt of a P r i va c y A c tc l a i m . C f
. W hi t l e y v . H u nt , 158 F
. 3d 882, 889- 90 ( 5th C i r . 1998) ( a f f ir m in g a s f

r iv o lo u s a P r i v a c y A c t c la im b e c a u s e “[ t]h e a p p e lla n t] is e s s e n tia lly cl ai m i ng thathi s s ent ence i t se l f w as i ncorrec t l y e nt er ed. T hat is an is sue that shou l d h ave been re sol ved o n d i re ctappeal fr om h is cr i m i nal conv i ct i on . ”) , abrogat ed on ot her g ro un ds by B oo th v
. T urner, 53 2 U
. S
. 73 1 (20 01 ); U ni t ed St a t e s v . M a n k o , 7 7 2 F. 2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 2 ( 8 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( a f f i r mi ng de ni a l o f

2 8 U
. S. C.The a ppropriatevehicle f

or see king modific ation or cor rec tion of sentenceis a 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2255 motion, although such a motion is n o rm all y

not available to c orre ct er rors that c ould have been raised at trial or on direc t appeal from a conviction. See Ly nn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1234 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Under the proc edural defa ult rule, a de fenda

nt generally

must advancean availa blec halle ng e to a

c ri min al c onvic tio n o r se nt ence on dire c t a pp e a l or e lsethede fend ant i s barred from presentingthat claim in a § 2255 proc eeding .”). We n o t e C o o p er also filed a § 2255 motion, the denial of which is currently on appeal in this Court, Cooper v. United States, Case N o. 05-14922. The district cour

t found this claim barre d by the doctrineof re s judicata. We do not 4 re a c h th ec or

re c tne ss o f thedis tric t c ourt ’s re s ju dic ata analysis be c a

us e , a s discus se d b e low , it is clea r, base d on our prior aff

irmance of the denial of Cooper ’s motion to set aside the same f orfe iture order , the instant forfe iture-related c laims are ba rre d by the law-of

-the-c ase doctrine. Cf. Calhoun, 29 8 F .3 d at 12 30 n. 2 (ho ldi ngtha t thi s Court may a ff

ir m the dis tric t c ourt

on dif ferent gro un ds so long a s the judgment entered is correct on a ny leg al ground, albe it a different ground from the one relied on by

the district court). To the extent Cooper ag ain ch al l en ges the ac cura cy of the PSI , for the reasons wehave discussed above , in connec tion with the di smissal of this action as to the U SPO, we also aff irm the dismiss al of his complaint ag ainst the DEA a nd the Depa

rtment of the Treasur

y . 6 § 22 5 5 mo t i o n t o mo d i f y s e n t e n c e a s s e r t i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f th e Pr i v a c y A c t b a s e d on
sen t en ci n g co u rt ’ s rel i an ce o n P S I co n ta in in g al l eg ed l y fal se i n fo rm at i o n ; “ T h ese
c o n te n tio n s , lik e M a n k o ’s b a s ic c o m p la in t th a t th e r e p o r t w a s in a c c u r a te in c e r ta in
r e s pe c t s, . . . c om e t oo l a t e . N o r e a s on a ppe a r s w hy the s e c ont e nt i ons c oul d not ha ve be e n r a i s e d a tthe t i m e of s e nt e nc i ng. ” )
. A c c or di n g l y, w e af f i r m the 3 d i s mi s s a l o f

Co o p e r ’ s c l a i m a g a i n s tth e U SPO f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. S e c o n d , C o o p e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s ly d is m is s e d h is P ri vacy A ctcl ai m agai nstthe D E A and t he D epar t m entof t he T re as u ry , in w hi ch he chal l enged t he ac cura cy of t he D E A ’ s “ decl ar at i on of forf ei tures , ” w hi ch w as p rep ared i n asso ci at i o n w i th th e fo rfei tu r e o r d e r e n t ered ag ai n stC o o p er. A s a 47

pr e l i m i na r y ma t t e r , w e n o t e th a tCo o p e rp r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a mo t i o n t o s e ta s i d e t he
sam e f or f e i tur e or de r . H i s m ot i on t o s e ta s i de w a s de ni e d by the di s tr i c tc our ton M a y 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 a n d w e r e c e n tly a f f ir m e d th a t d e c is io n w ith o u t o p in io n , p u r s u a n t to 11 th C i r. R
. 36 -1. S ee C oo per v. U ni t ed S t at es , 13 5 F ed. A pp x. 20 9 (11 th C i r. A pr . 17, 2005)
. I n the pr e vi ous a c t i on, C oope rs ue d the U n i t ed S t a t e s , butnotthe D E A orthe D e pa r t m e ntof the T r e a s ur y , ba s e d on: ( 1) a l a ck o f ad eq u at e not i c e of th e f o r f e itu r e ; ( 2 ) a la c k o f a u t h o r i t y f o rth e U n ite d S ta te s to e n te rth e B a h a m a s to
m a ke the s e i z ur e s ; ( 3) the D E A ’ s fa i l ur e t o m a i nt a i n i nve nt or y r e c or ds of the
se i zure s; and (4) res j ud i ca t a. W e s um m ar i l y a ff i rm ed th e d is tri ctcourt ’ s order denyi ng C oo per’ s m ot i on t o setas i de t he fo rf ei ture, i n w hi ch t he di stri ctcourt f ound: ( 1) the m oni e s a ti s s ue w e r e s e i z e d; ( 2) the m oni e s a ti s s ue w e r e f or f e i t e d;
a n d ( 3 ) th e a m o u n t o f

th e f o r f e itu r e w a s c o r r e c t.

“ U n de rthe ‘ l a w of

the c a s e ’ doc tr i ne , the f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of l a w by an appe l l a t e c our ta r e ge ne r a l l y bi ndi ng i n a l l s ubs e que ntpr oc e e di ngs i n the
s a m e c a s e i n the tr i a l c our toron a l a t e ra ppe a l
. ” T r a ns a m eri ca L easi n g , I nc . v. I n s titu te o f

L o n d o n U n d e r w r ite r s , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 6 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) . “[ W ]h ile the do ctri ne encom passes on l y tho se i ss ues pre vi ou sl y det er m i ned, the l aw i s c l ea r th ati tco m p reh en d s th i n g s d eci d ed b y n ecessary im p l i cat i o n as w el l as t h o se deci ded e xp l i ci t l y. ” Id. (e m ph as i s i n ori gi nal ). “ T he do ctri ne’ s ce nt ra l pu rposes8

i ncl ud e bri ng i ng an end t o l i t i gat i on , prot ec t i ng agai nstthe agi t at i on of se t t l ed i s s ue s , a nd a s s ur i ng tha tl ow e rc our t s obe y a ppe l l a t e or de r s . ” I d. S i m pl y put , i ti s i m pl i c i ti n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha t t h e am o u ntof the fo rf eitu re w as c o r r e c t, an d o u r a ff irm an ce o f th at d ec isio n , th at th e D E A ’s d e c la r a tio n r e g a r d in g th e f o r f e itu r e a n d t h e m o n ie s s e iz e d b y th e D E A ’s a g e n ts
a l s o w e r e c or r e c t . B y i t s di s pos i t i on o f C o o p er’ s m ot i on t o s e ta s i de f or f e i tur e , the di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y c on si d er ed the D E A ’ s “ decl ar at i on of forf ei tures ” t o con cl ud e,
a s i t d i d , t h a t t h e a m o u n to f th e f o r f e i tu r e wa s c o r r e c t . Ac c o r d i n g l y , u n d e rth e l a wof
- the
- c a se doc tr i ne , C oope r ’ s c l a i m i s ba r r e d a nd hi s c om pl a i nta s t o the D E A a nd t he D e p a r t me n t o f th e Tr e a s u r y b a s e d o n a l l e g e d e r r o r i n th e “ d e c l a r a t i o n of f o r f e itu r e s ” s u p p o r tin g th e f o r f e itu r e a w a r d w a s p r o p e r ly d is m is s e d
. F i nal l y, C oo per a rgues th at th e d i stri ctcourter re d w hen i tgave hi m no t i ce , i n a f ootnot e , tha the w o u l d b e b ar r e d f r om pr oc e e di ng i n f

or m a pa upe r i s i n a ny furthe r civ il act i on s pursuantt o t he “ three -s tri ke” rul e und er28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 91 5(g). W e a r e “o b lig a te d to i n q u i r e in to s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u a s p o n te w h e n e v e rit
m ay be l ac ki ng . ” B ochese v . T o w n o f P on ce Inl et , 40 5 F
. 3d 96 4, 97 5 (11 th C i r. 2005)
. A c c or di ngl y , w e m us t“ c ons i de rque s t i ons of s t a ndi ng r e ga r dl e s s of
w h e th e rth e p a r tie s h a v e r a is e d th e m .” I d
.In dismiss ing this claim, we express no opinion as to its m erits, but concludethat the 5 issue is simpl y

not ripe for

deter mination at this t ime.

9 T o s a t i s f y the c ons t i tut i ona l r e qui r e m e nt s of s t a ndi ng, a pl a i nt i f

f m us tm a ke th ree sh o w i n g s : (1 ) “ an ‘ i n j u ry i n fact ’ -- an i n v asi o n o f a l eg al l y p ro t ect ed i n t erest
w hi ch i s ( a) concret e a nd part i cul ar i ze d, and (b) actual or im m in en t, n otconj ec tural or hypo thet i ca l ”; (2) “ a c ausa l con n ec t i on bet w ee n t he i nj ury a nd the cond uct
c om pl a i ne d of

” ; a nd ( 3) tha ti ti s “ l i ke l y , a s oppos e d t o m erel y sp ec ul a t i ve , tha tthe in ju r y w ill b e r e d r e s s e d b y a f a v o r a b le d e c is io n .” B o c h e s e , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 9 8 0 . W e
r e a di l y c o n c l u d e th a tCo o p e rl a c k s s t a n d i n g t o r a i s e th e i s s u e c o n c e r n i ng
a ppl i cat i on of

the “ thr e e s tr i ke ” rul e a s he ha s not , a nd c a nnot , a s s e r ta n i nj ur y - i nf a c t- - th e ru l e h a s n o t b e e n a p p l i e d t o h i m . Ac c o r d i n g l y , a s t o th i s i s s u e , we di s m i s s the a ppe a l f

orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. 5 I n s um , w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of C oope r ’ s c om pl a i ntf

or fa il in g to state a c la im u p o n w h ich re li ef co u ld b e g ra n ted an d d ism iss C o o p er ’s
a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng the “ thr e e - s tr i ke ” rul e be c a us e he l a c ks s t a ndi ng t o r a i s e the is s u e . A FFI R M ED I N PA R T A N D D I SM I SSED I N PA R T.