United States v. Habibollah Elahinejad , 693 F. App'x 715 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-55559
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00259-GW-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HABIBOLLAH ELAHINEJAD,
Claimant-Appellant,
and
VARIOUS RESTAURANT FURNITURE
AND GOODS OF IRANIAN ORIGIN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Habibollah Elahinejad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 1595a(c)(1)(A) and
1595a(c)(2)(B) for goods seized from a shipment from Dubai, United Arab
Emirates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
United States v. $133, 420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Elahinejad
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a colorable
interest in the property. See id. at 638 (“[I]n a civil forfeiture action, a claimant’s
bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the absence of some other
evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary judgment.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Elahinejad’s contention that the
district court did not consider his evidence submitted in opposition to summary
judgment.
Because we affirm summary judgment, we do not reach Elahinejad’s other
contentions on appeal. See United States v. $15,500 in U.S. Currency, 558 F.2d
1359, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (when a claimant fails to establish the threshold
requirement of standing, the claimant’s challenges to the merits of the forfeiture
action cannot be reached).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55559