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

Heading: Forfeiture Claims.

Text: Rankin seeks relief under Bivens for the purportedly unconstitutional forfeiture of his property. Since Bivens, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected extending Bivens remedies to other constitutional claims. Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 549 (2007). To determine whether a Bivens remedy should be recognized, courts first look to whether “any alternative existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a convincing reason” to refrain from creating a new remedy. Id. Then, where no alternative exists, a court must still determine whether a remedy is appropriate paying heed to “any special factors counseling hesitation before authorizing a new kind of federal action.” Id. Here, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) provides a comprehensive statutory scheme for challenging a civil forfeiture. CAFRA requires the government to send a written notice to interested parties 60 days after seizure of property, 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(I), and any interested person may make a claim on the property. Id. § 983(a)(2)(A). If a claim is filed, the Government then has 90 days to seek civil forfeiture in a federal district court, obtain a criminal forfeiture indictment, or return the property. Id. § 983(a)(3)(A), (B). If the forfeiture proceedings move to court, counsel may be 8 Case: 12-60914 Document: 00512526477 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/07/2014 No. 12-60914 appointed, and the Government bears the burden of proving that the property is subject to forfeiture. Id. § 983(b), (c). Because CAFRA provides a comprehensive scheme for protecting property interests, no Bivens claim is available. See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 385-89 (1983); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424-27 (1988). 4. Spears Hearing and Leave to Amend. Rankin’s final argument is that it was error to fail to conduct a Spears hearing and to prohibit amending his complaint. In Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 n.3 (1989), this court authorized district courts to hold an evidentiary hearing in civil rights cases by prisoners to “dig beneath” conclusory allegations and ascertain the scenario that the prisoner alleged occurred and the legal basis for the claims. Here, the factual and legal bases for Rankin’s claims were sufficiently laid out in his complaint and amended complaint. The complaint was not dismissed as frivolous. No Spears hearing was necessary. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Rankin leave to amend his complaint a second time. Although a court ordinarily should not dismiss a pro se complaint without giving the petitioner an opportunity to amend, leave to amend is not required if he has pleaded his best case. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). Though Rankin lists additional facts he would have included in a second amended complaint, many of the assertions were made in his amended complaint, and he does not explain how any of the new facts would have affected the disposition of his claims. Amendment is not required if it would be futile. Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 9 Case: 12-60914 Document: 00512526477 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/07/2014 No. 12-60914 5. Conclusion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal of this action, but we VACATE the final order of dismissal and REMAND to the district court for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice. 10