United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21164
Conference Calendar
ALI REZA DADI; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
ALI REZA DADI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LYNN N. HUGHES, U.S. District Judge;
MICHAEL T. FLOREANS; JAMES BUCHANAN;
BRIAN T. MOFFATT; JACK ZIMMERMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-3276
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ali Reza Dadi, federal prisoner No. 59270-079, and his wife
Carmen appeal the dismissal as frivolous of a civil rights
complaint seeking damages for an alleged conspiracy to obtain the
wrongful civil forfeiture of their home following Ali Reza Dadi’s
conviction for bank fraud and money laundering offenses. We find
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-21164
-2-
no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the
complaint as frivolous.
For the first time on appeal, the Dadis argue that the
forfeiture was wrongful because Ali Reza Dadi was an innocent
owner of the property; that the forfeiture violates principles of
double jeopardy; and, alternatively, that Carmen Dadi and the
Dadi’s three children were innocent owners of the property.
Absent exceptional circumstances that implicate the
interests of justice, we generally do not review issues not
raised in the district court. Kinash v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736,
739 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997). Our review of issues raised for the
first time on appeal is limited to errors that are “plain” and
that “affect substantial rights.” See United States v. Caverley,
37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Dadi’s claim that he is an innocent owner implicates the
validity of his conviction and is thus barred by Heck v.
Humphrey.** The in rem forfeiture of Dadi’s house will not
support a double jeopardy claim. United States v. Ursery,
518 U.S. 267, 288 (1996); United States v. Garcia Abrego,
141 F.3d 142, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1998). The “innocent owner” claim
of Carmen Dadi and the Dadis’ children is based on evidence not
presented to the district court. As the district court did not
have an opportunity to consider this issue, the error, if any,
**
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
No. 02-21164
-3-
cannot have been “plain.” Robertson v. Plano City of Texas,
70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
This appeal is without arguable merit, and it is DISMISSED
AS FRIVOLOUS. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The Dadis are WARNED that future
frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions.
DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.