[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 10, 2009
No. 09-10711 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 02-00023-CR-FTM-29-DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID HURA REED,
a.k.a. Gary Hura Reed,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 10, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Reed appeals the district court’s judgment denying his pro se motion
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 for the return of his confiscated
property.
I.
In 2002 Reed was arrested after a traffic stop by a sheriff’s deputy in Collier
County, Florida. During a search of Reed’s car, the deputy found marijuana,
cocaine and $1,550.00 in cash. Reed later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of
conspiracy to distribute the cocaine and was sentenced to prison. Meanwhile, the
Collier County Sheriff’s Office instituted a civil forfeiture proceeding against Reed
in Florida state court. Reed was issued a summons but never responded, and in
November 2002 the Florida court entered a default judgment against him. The
$1,550 was then forfeited to the Collier County Sheriff’s Office.
In 2008 Reed filed a pro se complaint in the federal district court for the
Middle District of Florida. Reed sought return of his $1,550 under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41. The district court concluded that it had no authority to
grant Reed’s motion because Rule 41 is not available when property is taken
through civil forfeiture.
II.
Under Rule 41(g), “A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of
property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return.”
2
Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g). However, as the district court correctly observed, “[i]t is
well-settled that the proper method for recovery of property which has been subject
to civil forfeiture is not the filing of a . . . [Rule 41(g)] Motion, but filing a claim in
the civil forfeiture action.” United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1020 (11th Cir.
1989).1
And although a district court may have inherent equitable authority to
fashion a remedy even where the specific requirements of Rule 41 are not met, id.
at 1020, that authority does not apply here. Equitable jurisdiction over forfeiture
disputes like this one is limited to cases in which the owner of the property has
clean hands. United States v. Machado, 465 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006),
abrogated on other grounds by Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S. Ct. 2360
(2007). Here, Reed pleaded guilty to a drug charge and as part of his plea deal he
agreed to forfeit any and all assets subject to forfeiture under federal law. Thus,
the exercise of any equitable authority beyond the strict constraints of Rule 41
would be inappropriate in this case.
Finally, all boundaries of Rule 41 aside, Reed has sued the United States
government in federal court seeking to recover property that was forfeited to a
1
In 2002, Rule 41(e) was reclassified as Rule 41(g) with no substantive changes.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 41, Advisory Committee Note to the 2002 amendments. Therefore, our earlier
cases interpreting Rule 41(e) also apply to the new Rule 41(g).
3
Florida county sheriff’s office in a Florida state court proceeding. As we observed
in Castro, the “[d]efendant has simply chosen the wrong remedy in the wrong
court.” 883 F.2d at 1020.
AFFIRMED.
4