UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 98-41380
Summary Calendar
__________________
JACK WILLIAM HAWKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HENDERSON COUNTY; ANDERSON COUNTY; ANDERSON COUNTY DRUG
INVESTIGATION UNIT; US DEPT PF JUSTICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
(6:97-CV-62)
______________________________________________
May 3, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jack William Hawkins (Hawkins) appeals from the district
court's denial of his request for remand to state court and the
summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees, the United States
of America and the United States Department of Justice, Drug
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the
limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Enforcement Administration (United States), and Henderson County,
Texas.
Hawkins filed a Petition for Bill of Review in a Texas state
court challenging the validity of an order previously issued by the
state court. Hawkins not only sought to set aside the previous
order that had transferred funds to the custody of the United
States, but also sought in his petition an order from the state
court to have the United States return the seized finds. At the
time Hawkins filed his Petition for Bill of Review, the United
States had instituted and completed administrative forfeiture
proceedings that entitled the United States to the funds. Hawkins
was given notice of the forfeiture proceedings and was unsuccessful
in his efforts to recover the funds in the forfeiture proceedings
brought pursuant to federal law. It was only after his failure to
recover the seized funds that he brought his Petition for Bill of
Review both challenging the original transfer to the United States
and seeking to have the state court order the United States to
return the seized funds.
After reviewing the record and arguments on appeal, we find
Hawkins' arguments that the district court was without jurisdiction
and that the removal was improper to be without merit. Similarly,
his arguments that summary judgment was improper are unavailing.
Hawkins' interest in the funds was not divested by the original
state court order transferring the funds to the control of the
United States. Rather, his interest in the funds was divested only
after a proper forfeiture proceeding, of which he had notice,
2
divested him of any interest in the seized funds. We affirm the
district court's denial of Hawkins' request for remand and the
summary judgment essentially for the reasons set out in the
succinct and well-reasoned order denying remand dated August 29,
1997 and the order granting summary judgment dated September 30,
1998.
AFFIRMED.
3