September 28, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APEPALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
300 FERN STREET BANGOR, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees,
SUSAN E. BURKE
Claimant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge.
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Susan E. Burke on brief pro se.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael M. DuBose,
Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Dismissal for
appellees.
Per Curiam. Appellant appeals from the denial of
her Rule 60(b)(4) motion. She contends that a forfeiture
decree is void because she did not receive sufficient notice
of the forfeiture proceedings to satisfy due process. For
the reasons which follow, we conclude that appellant is not
entitled to relief.
The district court afforded appellant an
opportunity to prove that she had suffered damages as a
result of the due process violation, but appellant failed to
appear at the hearing, and damages were denied. Appellant
has not challenged the denial of damages on appeal, but
rather seeks a determination that the forfeiture decree was
void because of the due process violation. She contends that
the purchaser from the government could acquire no valid
title under a void judgment, and her intent is apparently to
proceed against the purchaser if the forfeiture decree is
declared void.
We will assume without deciding that appellant had
some possessory interest in the res entitling her to notice
of the forfeiture proceedings and that the government failed
to accord her sufficient notice, thereby violating her right
to due process. Nevertheless, because appellant, despite
ample opportunity, has failed adequately to describe what
property interest she claims to have had, she is not entitled
to Rule 60(b)(4) relief.
The record owner, as well as appellant's husband,
John Burke, were served in the forfeiture action, and their
rights in the property have been effectively extinguished.
So far as we are aware, they have not collaterally challenged
the forfeiture decree as void. In other words, the decree is
valid as to their interests. To prevail then in her quest
against the purchaser, appellant would need to show a
property interest that could survive the extinguishment of
the record owner's and John Burke's. She has failed to do
this, and consequently we conclude that appellant has failed
to establish that she is entitled to relief under Rule
60(b)(4).
Affirmed.
-3-