Opinion ID: 3012047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We reject Customs’ contention that no statutory provision authorizes our jurisdiction over Mantilla’s claim. We have previously held that a claimant’s collateral[ ] attack [of] an inadequately noticed administrative forfeiture presents a proper federal question, thereby conferring jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331. Foehl v. United States, 238 F.3d 474, 478 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664, 670 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc). Such challenges usually arise where the Government attempted, but failed to take all measures necessary under due process, to give notice of forfeiture. Foehl, 238 F.3d at 47880; McGlory, 202 F.3d at 671-74. We agree with Mantilla that his claim is a natural extension of these decisions. Indeed, this case involves the most inadequate notice possible: Customs failed to initiate forfeiture proceedings altogether, and thus never attempted to give notice of the funds’ status.4