Court Opinion

ID: 2964775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:56.499632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.338885
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1886
                            FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ-CLAUDIO,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,
                                         v.
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                Defendant, Appellee.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
              [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                                Torruella, Chief Judge
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                             and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                ____________________
            Francisco Rodriguez-Claudio on brief pro se.
            Guillermo  Gil, United  States  Attorney,  Nelson Perez-Sosa  and
       Jacque line D. Novas, Assistant United States  Attorneys, on brief for
       appellee.
                                ____________________
                                    JUNE 6, 1997
                                ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Francisco Rodriguez  Claudio
            appeals from the district court's dismissal of his  complaint
            for  the  return of  forfeited  property.    After  carefully
            reviewing 
                     the 
                         record 
                               and 
                                   the parties' briefs, we agree with the
            reasoning 
                     of 
                       the 
                           district court as set forth in its Opinion and
            Order, dated May 30, 1996.  We add the following comments.
                      1.   A 
                            collateral 
                                       attack 
                                             on 
                                                a 
                                                  forfeiture, such as the
            one at  hand,  "necessarily presents  a claim  for  equitable
            relief." 
                     
                     Uni
                        ted States v. Woodall, 12 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir.
            1993).  As such, a  court's decision to grant such relief  is
            governed 
                    by 
                      equitable 
                                principles.  See Linarez v. United States
            Dep't 
                 of 
                   Justice, 
                            2 
                              F.3d 
                                   208, 213 (7th Cir. 1993); 3 C. Wright,
            Federal Practice and Procedure  S 673, at 762 (2d ed.  1982).
            "Thus, 
                  the 
                      individual 
                                . 
                                  . . must show that he had an inadequate
            legal remedy and  that irreparable injury will result if  the
            court does not act."  Id.
                      Appellant received proper notice of the  forfeiture
            proceedings by  February 1993, prior  to having his  property
            actually  forfeited.  He  thus could have  filed a claim  and
            posted 
                  a 
                    bond, 
                         thereby 
                                 initiating judicial proceedings.  See 19
            U.S.C. S 1608;  21 C.F.R. S 1316.76(b).   By deciding not  to
            pursue  this  legal  remedy,  appellant  is  foreclosed  from
            obtaining 
                     equitable 
                              relief now.  That is, appellant cannot show
            that he had  an inadequate remedy at  law "for he could  have
            sought  recovery of  his  [property]  in  the  administrative
                                         -2-

            proceeding by raising the very same claims that he raised  in
            his complaint in the district court."  Linarez, 2 F.3d at 213
            (where  claimant received  actual  notice of  the  forfeiture
            proceedings which  explained how to file  a claim and post  a
            bond, but declined  to follow these procedures, he could  not
            pursue his constitutional claims in a collateral action).
                      2. 
                         
                         Because 
                                 appellant failed to present the question
            concerning 
                      excessive 
                               fines below, he has waived it.  See United
            States
                  
                  v. 
                     Pal
                        mer, 956 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1992).  We therefore
            decline to consider it.
                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                         -3-