Griffin v. United States of America

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND TRANSFERRING ACTION TO DISTRICT OF IDAHO for 4 Report and Recommendations. Case transferred to District of Idaho. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SMP, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8

CAMERON SCOTT GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,

9
10

vs.

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12

No. 2:14-cv-00074-JTR
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
TRANSFERRING ACTION TO
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Respondent.

13
14

Magistrate Judge Rodgers filed a Report and Recommendation on April 8,

15
16
17
18
19

2014, recommending Mr. Griffin’s action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, ECF No. 4.

Petitioner is

a

20

federal prisoner at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution Satellite Low in

21

Anthony, New Mexico, serving a 168 month sentence for drug violations in the

22
23
24
25
26
27

United States District Court, District of Idaho, cause number 3:06-cv-00067-EJL.
Petitioner is proceeding pro se in this action and seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. None of the documents submitted by Petitioner contain his original
signature.

28
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
TRANSFERRING ACTION TO DISTRICT OF IDAHO -- 1

1

By this action, Mr. Griffin seeks the return of property forfeited in the Idaho

2

criminal proceedings. On April 15, 2014, he filed a “Response,” which the Court

3
4
5
6

liberally construes as his Objection to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No.
5. Petitioner clarifies that he is seeking the return of property allegedly unlawfully
seized and forfeited in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. He asserts that there is no

7
8

pending criminal action against him and he has filed this action “in the district

9

where the property was seized” as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

10
11
12
13

41(g).
Petitioner cites to Ramsden v. United States, for the proposition that “district
courts have the power to entertain motions to return property seized by the

14
15

government when there are no criminal proceedings pending against the movant.”

16

2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.1993) (construing former Rule 41(e)). He asserts that the

17
18
19
20

Eastern District of Washington is the appropriate forum in which to seek relief
because the property (i.e., money, a boat and a boat trailer, 44 miscellaneous
firearms, and cash as substitute asset for vehicles) was seized in this district.

21
22

Here, Mr. Griffin was fully prosecuted and is serving a federally imposed

23

sentence from of the District of Idaho. He makes no assertion that this conviction

24
25
26
27

and sentence have been vacated. Court records show that Mr. Griffin previously
filed a Rule 41(g) motion in his criminal proceeding in 2006. See 3:06-cr-00067EJL, ECF No. 81. A Preliminary Order of Forfeiture was entered on October 31,

28
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
TRANSFERRING ACTION TO DISTRICT OF IDAHO -- 2

1

2008, and a Final Order of Forfeiture was issued on May 1, 2009. Id., ECF Nos.

2

226 and 261. A Rule 41(g) motion is not the appropriate means of collaterally

3
4
5
6

challenging a criminal judgment of forfeiture. See e.g., Young v. United States,
489 F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that a defendant cannot use Rule 41(g)
to challenge a criminal forfeiture order). Rule 41(g) only permits the recovery of

7
8

property that has been seized as evidence, not property that has been forfeited to

9

the government. See e.g. United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th

10
11
12
13

Cir.1999); Young, 489 F.3d at 315. Petitioner makes no assertion that the Idaho
forfeiture order has been vacated.
Because all forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) and (2) were

14
15

part of his federal criminal proceeding in the District of Idaho, this Court finds no

16

proper basis to exercise equitable jurisdiction. Any dispute Petitioner may have

17
18
19
20

with the adequacy of the criminal forfeiture proceedings lies in the District of
Idaho or an appropriate appellate court. It is not proper to ask a sister jurisdiction
to adjudicate claims which were not previously adjudicated to Petitioner’s

21
22
23

satisfaction in the District of Idaho.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and by the Magistrate Judge, IT

24
25
26

IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, is ADOPTED in its
entirety and the District Court Executive shall TRANSFER this action to the

27
28
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
TRANSFERRING ACTION TO DISTRICT OF IDAHO -- 3

1

United States District Court, District of Idaho.

This Court has made no

2

determination regarding Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
Order, and forward a copy to Petitioner. The District Court Executive is further
directed to forward this file with a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the United

7
8

States District Court for the District of Idaho, and close the file in this district. The

9

District Court Executive shall also provide a courtesy copy to Michael C. Ormsby,

10
11
12

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington.
DATED this 6th day of May 2014.

13
14
15
16

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Chief United States District Court Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
TRANSFERRING ACTION TO DISTRICT OF IDAHO -- 4