1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHALIQ ABDUL AS SALAAM, No. 2:25-cv-2919-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel1 and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 18 declaration in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and is granted. However, the complaint fails to state a claim and must be 20 dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of 21 this order. 22 I. Screening Requirement 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 1 Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this action is referred to the undersigned by Local 28 Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 1 (2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 2 See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 4 On August 25, 2005, in Sacramento, California, FBI agents seized plaintiff’s personal 5 property including a laptop, camera, electronics, and personal documents. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 6 Plaintiff was convicted in 2013, but the conviction was overturned in 2016. (Id.) Despite reversal 7 of the conviction, the FBI retained plaintiff’s property until a letter dated September 3, 2025 gave 8 him 30 days to retrieve the property or face forfeiture. (Id.) Plaintiff filed an administrative claim 9 for damages which was denied. (Id. at 2, 4.) 10 Defendants are the United States of America, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), 11 and unknown FBI agents. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges unlawful seizure and continued 12 detention of his property and seeks damages and return of property. (Id. at 3.) He seeks to proceed 13 under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 14 and Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Id. at 2.) 15 III. Discussion 16 The United States and FBI are immune from suit except where the United States has 17 expressly waived its right to sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 18 (1983); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). “The FTCA waives sovereign 19 immunity for claims against the federal government arising from torts committed by federal 20 employees.” Foster v. United States, 522 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 21 1346(b)(1)). Under the FTCA, the United States shall be liable “for injury or loss of property, or 22 personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of 23 the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). 24 There is an exception to the FTCA for claims arising out of “detention of goods[.]” See 28 25 U.S.C. § 2680(c). Thus, the United States does not waive sovereign immunity for claims arising 26 out of the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any law enforcement officer, 27 unless the property was seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture and four specified criteria are 28 satisfied. See Foster, 522 F.3d at 1075. The “detention of goods” exception is interpreted broadly, 1 id. at 1074, and applies to claims based on intentional conduct as well as arising out of negligent 2 handling or storage of detained property, Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 854 (1984). 3 Here, plaintiff’s FTCA claim arises from the detention of his property which was not 4 alleged to have been seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture. Plaintiff’s FTCA claim falls 5 within the “detention of goods” exception. Thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 6 The complaint also fails to state a Bivens claim. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 7 Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395 (1971). Plaintiff makes no specific 8 allegations about the conduct of any federal individual actors. The Supreme Court has declined to 9 extend the right of action implied in Bivens to permit a claim against a federal agency or entity 10 for damages arising from violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 11 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994). As to the unknown FBI agents, the complaint does not state a claim 12 because it lacks individualized allegations about the conduct of these defendants. Ashcroft v. 13 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 14 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own 15 individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). 16 That leaves plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure, which is presented both in the complaint and a separately filed motion. Under 18 Rule 41(g),2 a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the 19 deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Fed. Crim. P. 41(g). Such a claim is 20 treated as a civil equitable proceeding even when brought as a motion. Goodman v. United States, 21 369 F.2d 166, 168 (9th Cir. 1966); see also Ordonez v. United States, 680 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th 22 Cir. 2012) (noting the rule provides only for the return of property and not money damages). 23 Civil equitable relief under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not 24 available where the claimant could have pursued the return of property in the context of a judicial 25 or administrative forfeiture proceeding of which the claimant received adequate notice. United 26 States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHALIQ ABDUL AS SALAAM, No. 2:25-cv-2919-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel1 and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 18 declaration in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and is granted. However, the complaint fails to state a claim and must be 20 dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of 21 this order. 22 I. Screening Requirement 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 1 Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this action is referred to the undersigned by Local 28 Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 1 (2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 2 See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 4 On August 25, 2005, in Sacramento, California, FBI agents seized plaintiff’s personal 5 property including a laptop, camera, electronics, and personal documents. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 6 Plaintiff was convicted in 2013, but the conviction was overturned in 2016. (Id.) Despite reversal 7 of the conviction, the FBI retained plaintiff’s property until a letter dated September 3, 2025 gave 8 him 30 days to retrieve the property or face forfeiture. (Id.) Plaintiff filed an administrative claim 9 for damages which was denied. (Id. at 2, 4.) 10 Defendants are the United States of America, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), 11 and unknown FBI agents. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges unlawful seizure and continued 12 detention of his property and seeks damages and return of property. (Id. at 3.) He seeks to proceed 13 under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 14 and Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Id. at 2.) 15 III. Discussion 16 The United States and FBI are immune from suit except where the United States has 17 expressly waived its right to sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 18 (1983); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). “The FTCA waives sovereign 19 immunity for claims against the federal government arising from torts committed by federal 20 employees.” Foster v. United States, 522 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 21 1346(b)(1)). Under the FTCA, the United States shall be liable “for injury or loss of property, or 22 personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of 23 the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). 24 There is an exception to the FTCA for claims arising out of “detention of goods[.]” See 28 25 U.S.C. § 2680(c). Thus, the United States does not waive sovereign immunity for claims arising 26 out of the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any law enforcement officer, 27 unless the property was seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture and four specified criteria are 28 satisfied. See Foster, 522 F.3d at 1075. The “detention of goods” exception is interpreted broadly, 1 id. at 1074, and applies to claims based on intentional conduct as well as arising out of negligent 2 handling or storage of detained property, Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 854 (1984). 3 Here, plaintiff’s FTCA claim arises from the detention of his property which was not 4 alleged to have been seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture. Plaintiff’s FTCA claim falls 5 within the “detention of goods” exception. Thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 6 The complaint also fails to state a Bivens claim. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 7 Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395 (1971). Plaintiff makes no specific 8 allegations about the conduct of any federal individual actors. The Supreme Court has declined to 9 extend the right of action implied in Bivens to permit a claim against a federal agency or entity 10 for damages arising from violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 11 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994). As to the unknown FBI agents, the complaint does not state a claim 12 because it lacks individualized allegations about the conduct of these defendants. Ashcroft v. 13 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 14 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own 15 individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). 16 That leaves plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure, which is presented both in the complaint and a separately filed motion. Under 18 Rule 41(g),2 a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the 19 deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Fed. Crim. P. 41(g). Such a claim is 20 treated as a civil equitable proceeding even when brought as a motion. Goodman v. United States, 21 369 F.2d 166, 168 (9th Cir. 1966); see also Ordonez v. United States, 680 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th 22 Cir. 2012) (noting the rule provides only for the return of property and not money damages). 23 Civil equitable relief under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not 24 available where the claimant could have pursued the return of property in the context of a judicial 25 or administrative forfeiture proceeding of which the claimant received adequate notice. United 26 States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (“where a claimant has received adequate 27 2 Fed R. Crim. P. Rule 41(g) was formerly Rule 41(e). See United States v. Hayes, 385 F.3d 28 1226, 1229 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 notice of an earlier administrative forfeiture proceeding, and thus has had an adequate remedy at 2 law, the district court should deny a subsequent Rule 41(e) motion”); Ivy v. Fresno Police Dep’t, 3 No. 1:23-CV-01072-ADA-SAB, 2023 WL 7130659, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023), report and 4 recommendation adopted sub nom. Ivy v. Fresno Police Dep’t Officers, No. 1:23-CV-01072- 5 KES-SAB, 2025 WL 1680177 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2025) (rejecting 41(g) claim where the plaintiff 6 was apparently notified of adequate legal remedy in the form of forfeiture proceedings). 7 Here, the complaint alleges plaintiff received a letter giving him 30 days to retrieve the 8 property or face forfeiture. A Rule 41(g) proceeding is unavailable because plaintiff either has or 9 had an adequate legal remedy. See United States v. Clagett, 3 F.3d 1355, 1356 n. 1 (9th Cir. 10 1993) (“if notice was adequate the forfeiture proceeding provided an adequate legal remedy and 11 [claimant] will not be entitled to equitable relief.”); United States v. Price, 914 F.2d 1507, 1511 12 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding a Rule 41(g) motion cannot be used to collaterally attack an 13 administrative forfeiture proceeding; if the government has initiated an administrative forfeiture 14 proceeding then a district court lacks jurisdiction over a Rule 41(g) claim); United States v. U.S. 15 Currency $83,310.78, 851 F.2d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal where civil 16 forfeiture action was initiated the day after the motion for return of property was filed). 17 Liberally construing plaintiff’s Rule 41(g) motion, plaintiff appears to allege a lack of 18 adequate notice for the forfeiture proceeding because it imposed “an unreasonable 30-day 19 deadline to retrieve property retained for over 20 years.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Because plaintiff could 20 pursue return of his property in the context of that proceeding, however, the exercise of equitable 21 jurisdiction in this case would be inappropriate. See United States v. Woodard, 185 F. App’x 629, 22 630 (9th Cir. 2006) (“As Woodard conceded that he received actual notice of the impending 23 forfeiture of the disputed money, the forfeiture proceedings constituted an adequate legal 24 remedy.”);3 United States v. Ibrahim, No. CR-00-0852 CAS, 2007 WL 9753294, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 25 Mar. 16, 2007) (notice of a forfeiture proceeding which was sufficiently detailed to allow movant 26 to protect his interests by making a claim precluded Rule 41(g) motion for return of property). 27 3 United States v. Woodard, 185 F. App’x 629, is cited for persuasive rather than precedential 28 value. 1 IV. Order 2 The complaint must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although it appears 3 || plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief based on the underlying facts, plaintiff □□ granted 4 | leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (‘A pro se litigant 5 || must be given, leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it 6 || is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 7 || (citation omitted)). If plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be titled “First Amended 8 | Complaint” and must be complete by itself without reference to any prior pleading. See Local 9 | Rule 220. Plaintiff is not obligated to file a further amended complaint. 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 11 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 12 2. Plaintiff's motion for return of property (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 13 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 14 4. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the 15 requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice 16 within 30 days from the date of service of this order. 17 5. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 18 dismissed. 19 | Dated: December 29, 2025 / ae / a /y Ze
21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 | Bassal2sev2919.sem 24 25 26 27 28