Merritt v. Drug Enforcement Administration

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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