Opinion ID: 2652732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wrongful Seizure and Forfeiture.

Text: The United States is immune from suit as a sovereign absent a waiver. Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2001). The FTCA provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims against the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, but the waiver does not apply to any claim regarding the “detention of goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other law-enforcement officer.” The waiver does apply, however, if four conditions are met: (1) the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture under any provision of federal law allowing forfeiture other than as a sentence imposed for conviction of a crime; (2) the property was not forfeited; (3) the interest of the claimant was not remitted or mitigated; and (4) the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which his interest in the property was subject to forfeiture under federal criminal laws. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) (emphasis added). Rankin was convicted of a drug charge under 21 U.S.C. § 841, which subjected his property to criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853. Although the property was administratively forfeited, it was subject to federal criminal forfeiture laws, therefore Rankin cannot meet the fourth condition of § 2680(c). Accordingly, the FTCA claims are jurisdictionally barred by sovereign immunity. 5 Case: 12-60914 Document: 00512526477 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/07/2014 No. 12-60914 B. Breach of Plea Agreement and Misrepresentations. Rankin contends that the Assistant United States Attorneys named in this suit had a duty to seek only a criminal forfeiture and breached it by administratively forfeiting the property. To the extent that these claims are based on the plea agreement, they are breach of contract claims that do not fall within the FTCA waiver for tort claims. See Davis v. United States, 691 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that claims founded upon an alleged failure to perform contractual obligations are not tort claims that support subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA). Rankin asserts that his claim is for negligent failure to prevent the conversion of his property because the government failed to pursue criminal rather than administrative forfeiture. This claim, in essence, is based upon the same acts as the wrongful seizure claims mentioned above, and is likewise barred by sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c). C. Dismissal with Prejudice. Rankin contends that it was error to dismiss his FTCA claims with prejudice because a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a determination on the merits. Rankin is correct. See Davis v. United States, 961 F.2d 53, 57 (5th Cir. 1991). Because the FTCA claims will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we will vacate the order of the district court and remand for an entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice. 3. Bivens Claims A. Claims Regarding Seizure. There is no federal statute of limitations for a Bivens action, so federal courts apply the forum state’s limitations period for personal injury claims. Spotts, 613 F.3d at 573. In Mississippi, that period is three years. Miss. Code. Ann. § 15-1-49; Edmonds v. Oktibbeha Cty., Miss., 675 F.3d 911, 916 (5th Cir. 2012). Federal law governs when a claim accrues, beginning when a “plaintiff 6 Case: 12-60914 Document: 00512526477 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/07/2014 No. 12-60914 knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Burrell v. Newsome, 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989). Rankin claims his constitutional rights were violated by the agents who allegedly exceeded the scope of a search warrant when they seized his property on June 1, 2006. Rankin’s counsel enrolled on June 12, 2006, and either received or sent copies of the warrant and seizure notification on June 15, 2006. Rankin was also sent notices both at his residence and the Harrison County Jail of the seizure and administrative forfeiture proceedings via certified mail in July 2006. Rankin does not contest the assertion that he knew his property had been seized as early as June 2006, therefore he had until June 2009 to file his Bivens action. Rankin’s complaint was signed and dated on October 28, 2009. On its face, the complaint is untimely. Rankin contends that the complaint should relate back to April 21, 2008, when he filed a Rule 41(e) motion for return of his property. Rule 41(g) provides that “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). In Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 1998) the plaintiff filed a Rule 41 motion for the return of property seized from his home. The government responded that the property had been destroyed. Because the plaintiff was only then made aware that his property had been destroyed, the court found that the plaintiff could have amended his motion to state a Bivens claim. Pena is distinguishable. While the plaintiff in Pena could not have known to seek monetary damages until the government disclosed the destruction of his property, Rankin knew of the seizure, and the forfeiture proceedings nearly two years before he filed his Rule 41(e) motion. Pena does not support Rankin’s argument for relating his complaint back to the filing of his Rule 41 motion. 7 Case: 12-60914 Document: 00512526477 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/07/2014 No. 12-60914 Rankin next argues that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because he and his counsel were misled by the government into believing that some of his property would be returned and that the government would forego any administrative forfeiture in return for his plea. While the statute of limitations for a Bivens action may be equitably tolled, equity does not favor Rankin. He knew of the facts underlying the alleged Fourth Amendment violations in June 2006, and the government sent him notices of the administrative forfeiture proceedings in July 2006. He does not explain how the government’s actions prevented him from bringing a timely claim.