United States v. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehi

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 14, 2020
Docket19-10305
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehi (United States v. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehi, (9th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10305

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:18-sw-00308-LJO-BAM-1 v.

2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, MEMORANDUM* VEHICLE ID NO. 3GCPCREC4FG173943, CA, License Plate 68914H2,

Defendant,

v.

ANASTASIA PURNELL,

Movant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Anastasia Purnell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking return of a 2015

Chevrolet Silverado seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Because there are no criminal proceedings pending against Purnell, Rule 41

has no application here. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.

1993). However, the district court had discretion to exercise equitable jurisdiction

over Purnell’s motion. See id. The court did not abuse its discretion by declining

to exercise such jurisdiction because Purnell failed to challenge the forfeiture under

18 U.S.C. § 983(e). See Okafor v. United States, 846 F.3d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 2017)

(§ 983(e) provides the remedy for setting aside a declaration of forfeiture);

Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 325 (listing factors that govern district court’s exercise of

equitable jurisdiction, including whether the movant has an adequate remedy at

law).

The parties’ requests for judicial notice are granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-10305

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Terence Philip Ramsden v. United States
2 F.3d 322 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Chike Okafor v. United States
846 F.3d 337 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-2015-chevrolet-silverado-vehi-ca9-2020.