Opinion ID: 676417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Michael Caldwell's Claim

Text: 3 The disentitlement doctrine prevents fugitives from calling upon the resources of the court to adjudicate their claims. Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970); Conforte v. Commissioner, 692 F.2d 587, 589-90 (9th Cir.1982). 4 The district court held that the disentitlement doctrine barred it from hearing Michael Caldwell's claim because he is a fugitive from justice. The court cited United States v. $129,374 in U.S. Currency, 769 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied sub. nom Geiger v. United States, 474 U.S. 1086 (1986), where we held that the disentitlement doctrine precluded a fugitive from presenting any claim or defense in a civil forfeiture action related to his criminal proceeding. Id. at 587. 5 Michael Caldwell contends that his case is distinguishable from $129,374. He notes that unlike the claimant in that case, he has was never arrested or found guilty of the related criminal charge. He also argues that unlike the fugitive in $129,374, he did not flee during the pendency of a criminal or civil forfeiture proceeding, as such proceedings had not yet been instituted. 6 These arguments are wholly without merit. Michael Caldwell's fugitive status is the product of his own willful attempt to avoid prosecution. The timing of his decision to flee--whether before or after conviction--does not affect his fugitive status or the application of the disentitlement doctrine. See United States v. Eng, 951 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.1991). 7 Michael Caldwell also argues we should not apply the disentitlement doctrine in his case because he did not initiate the civil proceedings, but is merely defending against the Government's forfeiture action. Thus, he argues he has not invoked the court's aid within the meaning of Molinaro. This claim is similarly without merit. Which party initiated the action and the party's procedural posture have no bearing on the applicability of the disentitlement doctrine. $129,374, 769 F.2d at 589; Eng, 951 F.2d at 466. 8 Finally, Michael Caldwell argues that even if the disentitlement doctrine applies to him, the district court failed to realize it was within its discretion whether to apply it. However, a reading of the district court opinion in its entirety makes clear that the court recognized it had the discretion to hear Caldwell's claim, but declined to do so.