Merritt v. Drug Enforcement Administration ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                     FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-10231                       JUNE 28, 2010
    Non-Argument Calendar                   JOHN LEY
    ________________________                   CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 07-00627-CV-W-N
    JACQUARD MERRITT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (June 28, 2010)
    Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jacquard Merritt appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action seeking
    to set aside the Drug Enforcement Administration’s seizure and the subsequent
    forfeiture of $8,000 in United States currency.
    A district court’s jurisdiction to review forfeiture orders is limited to deciding
    whether the agency properly followed the procedural safeguards of the Civil Asset
    Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 
    18 U.S.C. § 983
    . See Valderrama v. United States,
    
    417 F.3d 1189
    , 1196 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court properly concluded that
    Merritt alleged nothing that brought into question the procedural aspects of the
    forfeiture. (R.1-14.) And, it properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review
    the merits of a properly executed administrative forfeiture for the reasons stated in its
    memorandum opinion and order. (Id.)
    Additionally, we find no error in the district court’s decision not to exercise
    equitable jurisdiction. As in Valderrama, Merritt “received all the required notice .
    . . in sufficient time to challenge the forfeiture proceeding. ‘It is inappropriate for a
    court to exercise equitable jurisdiction to review the merits of a forfeiture matter
    when the petitioner elected to forego the procedures for pursuing an adequate remedy
    at law.’” 
    417 F.3d at 1197
     (quoting In re Matter of Sixty Seven Thousand Four
    Hundred Seventy Dollars ($67,470.00), 
    901 F.2d 1540
    , 1545 (11th Cir. 1990)).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-10231

Judges: Carnes, Marcus, Cox

Filed Date: 6/28/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024