IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 92-4152
_____________________
TERRANCE KEITH HUNT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
_______________________________________________________
(August 31, 1993)
Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Hunt appeals from the district court's dismissal of
his motion to return property. We agree with the district court
that Hunt's motion can be dismissed if he has an alternate
adequate legal remedy, but we disagree with its conclusion that
Hunt has such a remedy.
I. BACKGROUND
In May 1990, Terrance Hunt filed a motion under FED. R. CRIM.
P. 41(e) for the return of approximately $46,000, claiming that
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) erroneously held this
money. Hunt later added several Louisiana parties as defendants
to his motion.1
In August 1990, the FBI issued two checks to Hunt for the
total amount that he claimed. Louisiana seized these checks two
months later according to a Louisiana judge's warrant, which
"authorized [Louisiana officials] to seize said aforementioned
checks and hold them subject to the orders of th[e] court." In
November 1990, Louisiana claimed the checks in forfeiture
proceedings.
By adopting a magistrate's recommendations, the district
court held that Hunt's Rule 41(e) motion must be dismissed
because the Louisiana forfeiture proceeding represents an
adequate remedy at law under which he can recover his property.
Alternatively, the court held that the Louisiana defendants must
be dismissed because Hunt did not properly name them or state
claims against them.
II. DISCUSSION
A. TIMELINESS OF APPEAL
Hunt filed his notice of appeal in this case after the ten-
day limit for criminal appeals imposed by FED. R. APP. P. 4(b),
but before the sixty-day limit for civil appeals imposed by FED.
R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). Though Hunt initiated this case under Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), the district court at all times
treated this case as a civil proceeding. This court has also
1
These parties are Jay Via, Marcus Clark, Metro Narcotics
Unit of the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Department, and Ouachita
Parish Sheriff's Office.
2
before decided procedural questions in Rule 41(e) cases according
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Industrias Cardoen,
Ltda. v. United States, 983 F.2d 49, 52 (5th Cir. 1993)
(addressing merits of appellants' arguments concerning FED. R.
CIV. P. 60(b) in a Rule 41(e) case). Other circuits have held
that, for simplicity and clarity, "all appeals from orders
granting or denying motions under Rule 41(e) will be treated as
civil appeals." United States v. Taylor, 975 F.2d 402, 403 (7th
Cir. 1992); accord United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364,
1367 (9th Cir. 1987). We agree with these courts because Rule
41(e) motions represent a means by which a criminal defendant can
determine her rights in property, and not a part of the trial and
punishment process that is criminal law. Accordingly, Hunt
timely appealed the district court's dismissal of his Rule 41(e)
motion.
B. REMEDY ADEQUACY
The district court correctly held that a court may deny a
Rule 41(e) motion where an adequate remedy at law exists.
Industrias Cardoen, 983 F.2d at 51-52. But the court erred by
holding that Hunt has an adequate remedy at law in the Louisiana
forfeiture proceeding. The October 1990 warrant which permitted
Louisiana authorities to seize the two United States checks
payable to Hunt required a court order before Louisiana could
cash those checks. The record contains no indication that
Louisiana cashed the checks, nor that any court permitted
Louisiana to do so. Moreover, the checks each state on the front
3
"VOID AFTER ONE YEAR," and bear an issuance date of August 28,
1990. Thus, the checks were worthless before the magistrate
issued his Recommendation on December 24, 1991.
The FBI retains Hunt's money, and the Louisiana forfeiture
proceeding will not help him get it back. On remand, the
district court must follow Industrias Cardoen and provide Hunt a
means of challenging the FBI's retention of his money. We
admonish the court to act swiftly to resolve Hunt's claims, which
have lingered in the courts for years through no fault of Hunt.
C. LOUISIANA DEFENDANTS
We agree with the district court's legal conclusions that
require dismissal of the Louisiana defendants.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court's judgment except as it applies
to the Department of Justice. We reverse the judgment as it
applies to the Department of Justice and remand this case for
further consideration.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
4