Opinion ID: 5899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: remedy adequacy

Text: 6 The district court correctly held that a court may deny a Rule 41(e) motion where an adequate remedy at law exists. Industrias Cardoen, 983 F.2d at 51-52. But the court erred by holding that Hunt has an adequate remedy at law in the Louisiana forfeiture proceeding. The October 1990 warrant which permitted Louisiana authorities to seize the two United States checks payable to Hunt required a court order before Louisiana could cash those checks. The record contains no indication that Louisiana cashed the checks, nor that any court permitted Louisiana to do so. Moreover, the checks each state on the front VOID AFTER ONE YEAR, and bear an issuance date of August 28, 1990. Thus, the checks were worthless before the magistrate issued his Recommendation on December 24, 1991. 7 The FBI retains Hunt's money, and the Louisiana forfeiture proceeding will not help him get it back. On remand, the district court must follow Industrias Cardoen and provide Hunt a means of challenging the FBI's retention of his money. We admonish the court to act swiftly to resolve Hunt's claims, which have lingered in the courts for years through no fault of Hunt.C. LOUISIANA DEFENDANTS 8 We agree with the district court's legal conclusions that require dismissal of the Louisiana defendants.