Griffin v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Cameron Scott Griffin. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SMP, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9
10

CAMERON SCOTT GRIFFIN,

11

Petitioner,

12 v.

No. 2:14-cv-00074-JTR
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14
Respondent.
15
16

BEFORE THE COURT is Mr. Griffin’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF

17
18

No. 7, of the Order transferring his action to the United States District Court for the

19

District of Idaho pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Petitioner, a federal prisoner at the

20
21
22
23

Federal Satellite Low LaTuna in Anthony, New Mexico, submitted this pro se
action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704, and
seeks the return of property forfeited as a result of his 2008 convictions for drug

24
25

violations in the District of Idaho. The Court has not ruled on his application to

26

proceed in forma pauperis.

27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 1

1

Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function. “‘[T]he major grounds

2

that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the

3
4
5
6

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir.
1989). Such motions are not the proper vehicle for offering evidence or theories of

7
8

law that were available to the party at the time of the initial ruling. Fay Corp. v.

9

Bat Holdings I, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash. 1987).

10
11
12
13

Mr. Griffin has not alleged that there has been an intervening change of
controlling law. Likewise, he has not offered newly discovered evidence that
would justify this Court re-examining the issue. Thus, the only remaining question

14
15

is whether the Court should alter its prior ruling in order to “correct a clear error or

16

prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid Lake, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5.

17
18
19
20

Petitioner argues the decision to transfer this action to the District of Idaho is
“clear error.” He complains that the Court failed to acknowledge certain Ninth
Circuit cases he had cited.

These cases, however, dealt with administrative

21
22

forfeitures rather than criminal forfeitures. See Quinones-Ruiz v. United States,

23

873 F. Supp. 359 (S.D. Cal. 1995); United States v. Clagett, 3 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir.

24
25
26

1993); Marshall Leasing, Inc. v. U.S, 893 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court
concludes that United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672 (11th Cir. 1999), also

27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 2

1

concerned administrative forfeiture and is not applicable to Petitioner’s

2

circumstances.

3
4
5
6

Regardless, a Rule 41(g) motion is not the appropriate means to collaterally
challenge a criminal judgment of forfeiture. See e.g., Young v. United States, 489
F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir. 2007) (persuasive authority holding that a defendant cannot

7
8

use Rule 41(g) to challenge a criminal forfeiture order).

Under Rule 41(g),

9

“[p]roperty seized for the purposes of a trial that is neither contraband nor subject

10
11
12
13

to forfeiture should ordinarily be returned to the defendant once trial has
concluded.” United States v. Kaczynski, 416 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing
United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 1991)

14
15

(noting that motion for return of property is properly denied when the property is

16

subject to forfeiture); see also United States v. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir.

17
18
19
20

2004) (Rule 41 may be invoked “after criminal proceedings have concluded to
recover the defendant’s property when the property is no longer needed as
evidence -- unless, of course, it has been forfeited in the course of those

21
22
23

proceedings”). Mr. Griffin’s property was clearly subject to forfeiture.
The property that Petitioner wishes to have returned to him was forfeited as

24
25
26

part of his criminal sentence in a proceeding before the United States District
Court, District of Idaho, cause number 3:06-cv-00067-EJL. He is not challenging

27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 3

1

an agency forfeiture decision over which this Court might exercise equitable

2

jurisdiction.

3
4
5
6

For the reasons set forth in the preceding Order, ECF No. 6, the Court finds
Petitioner’s arguments for reconsideration unpersuasive. It would be inappropriate
for this Court to review the adequacy of forfeiture proceedings, including claims of

7
8

ineffective assistance of counsel or previously adjudicated Fourth Amendment

9

claims, in a sister District. Such review is the province of the District of Idaho or

10
11
12
13

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Again, a forfeiture as part of a criminal
sentence may only be challenged on direct appeal. See Young, 489 F.3d at 315.
Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the Court finds no manifest injustice in

14
15

transferring this action to the United States District Court, District of Idaho,

16

because Petitioner challenges a criminal forfeiture in that District. Therefore,

17
18
19
20

Petitioner’s invitation to exercise equitable jurisdiction over his claims or to allow
him to amend is declined. The Court finds this action an “improper attempt to
challenge a component of his sentence” in this District. Young, 489 F.3d at 315.

21
22

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration,

23

ECF No. 7, is DENIED.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
Order, forward a copy to Petitioner, and close the file.

The District Court

Executive shall also provide courtesy copies to the Clerk of the United States

28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 4

1

District Court for the District of Idaho, and to Michael C. Ormsby, U.S. Attorney

2

for the Eastern District of Washington.

3
4

DATED this 27th day of May 2014.

5
6
7
8

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

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 5