Case Name: Michelle CHASTEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Arnold Robert Chasteen, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-19
Citations: 66 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 02-16663; D.C. No. CV-02-00206-RCB
Parties: Michelle CHASTEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Arnold Robert Chasteen, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
Michelle CHASTEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Arnold Robert Chasteen, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-16663.
D.C. No. CV-02-00206-RCB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 19, 2003.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michelle Chasteen appeals the district court's judgment, which dismissed her motion for the return of seized property filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §' 1291. We review de novo, J.B. Manning Corp. v. United States, 86 F.3d 926, 927 (9th Cir.1996), and we vacate and remand.
A Rule 41(e) motion is treated as a civil equitable proceeding when no criminal proceedings are pending. See United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1987). The district court erred by dismissing the action. See id. at 1367. Chasteen need not file a separate civil action. See id. at 1368.
Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to "receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion." Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.