Opinion ID: 757470
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mootness of claims to Star Valley Ranch, firearms, and two bank accounts

Text: 8 On appeal, Dr. Libretti raises several arguments regarding the Star Valley Ranch, the firearms, and the two bank accounts. Specifically, he argues that (1) his property interests were unconstitutionally taken from him because § 853 permits a criminal defendant to forfeit an innocent third party's interests in property as part of a plea agreement; (2) the district court did not engage in meaningful adversarial testing to determine his interests, because he was precluded from participating in the criminal proceedings by § 853(k)(1); (3) he was entitled to a jury trial to determine whether his property interests were forfeitable; (4) the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Star Valley Ranch was forfeitable; (5) the district court erroneously used the civil forfeiture probable cause standard, rather than the criminal forfeiture preponderance of the evidence standard, in determining his third party property interests in the April 2, 1993, order; (6) the district court violated his due process rights by failing to issue subpoenas and by failing to holding a second evidentiary hearing as promised; (7) the district court denied him due process by failing to allow Mrs. Libretti to call defendant as a witness at the March hearing, permitted by § 853(n)(5); (8) the forfeiture was unconstitutional because the district court was not confident that the Star Valley Ranch was forfeitable; (9) the government did not comply with the publication requirements of § 853(n)(1) with respect to the firearms; and (10) his claims should have been granted because defendant had no power to forfeit Dr. Libretti's property interests. The government contends that these arguments are moot because the final order of forfeiture returned the bank accounts to Dr. Libretti and dismissed the Star Valley Ranch and relevant firearms from the forfeiture proceedings. 9 We address mootness as a threshold question, because we lack subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal of a moot issue. See Golfland Entertainment Ctrs., Inc. v. Peak Inv., Inc. (In re BCD Corp.), 119 F.3d 852, 856 (10th Cir.1997). The constitutional mootness doctrine is grounded in Article III's requirement that federal courts only decide 'actual, ongoing cases or controversies.'  Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1326 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990)). [A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Yellow Cab Coop. Ass'n v. Metro Taxi, Inc. (In re Yellow Cab Coop. Ass'n), 132 F.3d 591, 594-95 (10th Cir.1997) (quotations omitted). 10 We conclude the ten arguments listed above are moot. The bank accounts have been returned to Dr. Libretti, and the Star Valley Ranch property and the firearms were dismissed from the federal forfeiture proceedings in deference to state forfeiture proceedings. The government suggests that, if the State of Wyoming does not forfeit the firearms, the government will later seek forfeiture of the property. See 2 R. Doc. 464 at 13. This suggestion is not a sufficient possible collateral consequence to present an ongoing controversy. See McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir.1996) (requiring party seeking only equitable relief to prove good chance of future injury to avoid application of mootness doctrine). Any possibility that the government will reinstitute forfeiture proceedings is too conjectural and speculative to overcome the mootness doctrine. See Jones v. Temmer, 57 F.3d 921, 923 (10th Cir.1995). 11 Although a federal court may not issue decisions on moot questions, see Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir.1997), [a]n exception to the mootness doctrine arises in cases which are capable of repetition, yet evading review[,] id. at 729. Dr. Libretti does not argue that this case falls within the narrow exception to mootness, and we do not believe the case falls within the exception. In the event the government does bring another forfeiture action, it would be reviewable at that time. Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed as moot. 12