Court Opinion

ID: 2963617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:04.107723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:42.962815
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 11, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1160 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   BRYON S. MISEPH,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Bryon Miseph on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  C. Jeffrey Kinder,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  In October 1993, defendant Bryon Miseph was
                 __________

            sentenced to  a combined 100-month prison  term following his

            guilty  plea  to  cocaine  and  firearms  offenses.    Nearly

            fourteen  months later, he filed a motion under Fed. R. Crim.

            P.  41(e) for the return  of some eighteen  firearms that had

            been taken from his  residence following his arrest--claiming

            that the  items  had  been unlawfully  seized  and  had  been

            unrelated  to  his  criminal  activity.    In  response,  the

            government stated that, after  notice to all known interested

            parties  had been provided and  no claim had  been filed, the

            property had been administratively forfeited and subsequently

            destroyed.    Evidence  attesting   to  the  declaration   of

            forfeiture and  the destruction  was provided.   The district

            court denied  the motion the following  day--finding that the

            property was no longer  in existence and that, in  any event,

            it  had been "lawfully seized  and forfeited."  Defendant now

            appeals,  claiming  that  he  never received  notice  of  the

            forfeiture.   He notes in this regard that, pursuant to court

            order,  he  had been  confined  under "house  arrest"  in his

            parents' residence in East Falmouth, Massachusetts during the

            relevant period.

                 The issue before  us is  a narrow one.   The  government

            acknowledges  that  a  district  court  has  jurisdiction  to

            entertain  collateral due  process attacks  on administrative

            forfeitures.  See,  e.g., United States  v. Giraldo, 45  F.3d
                          ___   ____  _____________     _______

            509,  511 (1st Cir. 1995)  (per curiam) (listing  cases).  It

            also  acknowledges that  the destruction  of the  property in

            question here did not  render such an action moot--suggesting

            that the  motion could  have  been treated  as an  "equitable

            claim for damages," see, e.g., Rufu v. United States, 20 F.3d
                                ___  ____  ____    _____________

            63, 65 (2d Cir.  1994); United States v. Martinson,  809 F.2d
                                    _____________    _________

            1364, 1366-69 (9th Cir. 1987), and noting that a civil action

            for damages would in any event lie, see, e.g., Mora v. United
                                                ___  ____  ____    ______

            States, 955 F.2d 156,  160 (2d Cir. 1992); cf.  United States
            ______                                     ___  _____________

            v.  Mosquera,  845  F.2d  1122,  1126 (1st  Cir.  1988)  (per
                ________

            curiam).   The government  simply contends that,  as the Rule

            41(e) motion  was properly  denied, we should  affirm without

            prejudice  to   defendant  filing   a  separate   action  for

            appropriate relief.

                 We  agree.    Defendant   has  raised  his  due  process

            challenge for the  first time only on  appeal.  As  such, the

            district  court's ruling  obviously  cannot be  considered an

            abuse  of discretion  based upon  the record then  before the

            court.  To be  sure, it might have  been better practice  had

            the  district  court  afforded defendant  an  opportunity  to

            address  the  government's  opposition before  ruling.    Yet

            defendant (who claims that he first learned of the forfeiture

            and  destruction  by  reading  such  opposition)  could  have

            presented his due process challenge to the lower court by way

            of  a timely motion for reconsideration, but failed to do so.

                                         -3-

            Under these circumstances, we  think it appropriate to affirm

            the  district  court's  order,  albeit  without prejudice  to

            defendant's  assertion  of  his   due  process  claim  in  an

            independent action under 28 U.S.C.   1331.

                 Affirmed.  
                 _________

                                         -4-