Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20443 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. JOSE LU I S RO D RI G U EZ D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 89- C R

- 229- 3

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jo s e Lui s Rodr i gue z , f o r m e rfe de r alpr i s o ne r#0 05 82

- 42 4, c hal l e nge s t he d i stri ct co u rt’ s tran sfer a n dd en i a lo f h i s “ori gin a l” com p l a i n t f i l ed pu rsu a n t t o F ED . R . C IV . P . 6 0 (b )(4 ) a n d( 5 ). R o d r ig u e z f ile dh is c o m p la in t in th e B r o w n s v ille D ivi si on of

t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas argu i n g t h at t h e j u dg m en ti n C ase N o.

“ B

- 89-197" w as voi d. H e asser t ed that property t ak en f rom a safet y dep osi tbox at the S an B en i t o B an k an d T rust C om pa n y w as i m properl y sei zed an d ret ai n ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20443

2 by the G overnm en tfor1 8 years. R odri gu ez requ est ed com pen sati on f or t h e l oss of hi s pro per t y. T h e d i stri ct cou rt i n B row n sv i l l e g ra n tedthe G ov ern m e n t’ s m oti on to t r a n s fe rR o d r ig u e z ’s c o m p la in tto H o u s t o n b e c a u s e th a tis w h e r e R o d r ig u e z ’s cri m i n alcase occurred, speci f i cal l y C ase N o. H

- 89-c r- 002 29-03, an d w h ere R o d r ig u e z p r e v io u s lys o u g h tr e t u r n o f t h e p r o p e r t ya tis s u e h e r e . R o d r ig u e z ’s pri or m ot i on fo r t h e ret u rn of property w as den i ed as u n t i m el y. Th e di st ri ct court i n H ou st on t reat ed R odri gu ez’ s i n st an tact i on as a sub sequ en tm ot i on f or th e retu rn of p rop ertyan dde n i ed i t. O n app eal , R odri gu ez asser t s f or t h e f i rstt i m e t h at t h e G overnm en tfai l ed to p r o p e r lys e r v e h im w i t h a c o p yo f its m o tio n to d is m is s o ra lte r n a tiv e ly t ran sfer hi s c om pl ai n t
. H e asser t s t h at hi s du e process r igh ts w ere vi ol ated b e c a u s e h e w a s n o ta ll o w e da n o p p o r t u n it yto r e s p o n dto th e G o v e r n m e n t ’s
m oti on pr i or to th e d i stri ct cou rt t ra n sferri n g h i s ca se. R od ri guezf u rth er a sse rts t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci sio n tran sferri n g h i s c ase t o t h e H ou st on divi si on s ho ul d be re ve r s e d be c aus e t he G o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o s ho w “ go o d c aus e ” f o rt he t ran sfer. I ti s unc l e arf

r o m t he r e c o r d whet he rRod r i gue z recei veds e r vi c e o f t he G ove r nm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss . H ow eve r , w hati s c l eari s t haton June 2 , 2008, R odri guez w as ha nd d e l ive r e d ac o pyo f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rg r ant i ng t he G o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n to d is m is s a n dits t r a n s fe ro r d e r . R o d r ig u e z d idn o t file any r es ponse orobj ec t i on t o t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s t r ansf eror derpri ort o t he deni al of hi s ac t i on o n J u n e 2 5 , 2 008. R odr i guez doe s notex pl ai n on appealw hat argu m en t s he w ou l d h ave p resented i n opp osi t i on t o t h e G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . Addi t i o nall y, o t he rt han t he c o nc l us o r y as s e r t i o n t hatt he r e w as “ no good c aus e ” f

o r t he t r ans fe r , Rodr i gue z has fail e d t o e xp l ai n w hy t he t ran sfer
w a s e r r o n e o u s . T h u s , h e h a s fa ile dto s h o w a n yd u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ji m enez , 2 5 6 F .3d 3 3 0 , 3 4 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ).N o. 08- 20443

3 Al t ho ugh no t al t o ge t he r c l e ar , i f Rod r i gue z ’ s br i e f i s l ibe r al l y c o ns t r ue d, he m ay be ar gui ng t hathi s “ or i gi nal” c om pl ai nti n t he di st r i c tc our ts houl d have bee n t r eat ed as an i ndependent ac t i on i n equi t y. E ven so , he has no ts how n t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef o n a p p eal

. The r ec or d r ef l ec t s t hatR odr i guez had an ad equ ate r em edyat l aw concerni n g t h e property i n qu est i on p u rs u an tt o F ED
. R . C RIM
. P

. 41( g)

. Bec aus e Rod r i gue z i s e s s e nt i al l y at t e m pt i ng t o r e l i t i ga t e t he
s am e i s s ue s he pr e s e nt e d i n hi s R ul e 41( g) m o t i o n t hatw as pr e vi o us l y de ni e d, th e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s d i scre ti on i n d en yin g th e insta n t com p l a i n t. S ee B an kers Mortgage Co. v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 2 3 F .2da t 7 3 , 7 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.