FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: TERRI JORDAN; DONALD R.
JARVIS; CESAR CERVANTES; JIM
CANALES; HECTOR ARZOLA;
FRANCISCO MONTIJO; GEORGE
ELIZARDO; STEVEN W. FIERRO; ARI
GALINDOROJO; MARK CORONADO;
THOMAS GARCIA; MICHAEL RAMOS;
JESSE RODRIGUEZ, JR.; ERIC
ROMERO; MARTIN GUEVARRA; JOSE
OCHOA; ROBERT TORRES; FREDERICK
WIDMAYE; RAMON URIBE; RICHARD
GUTIERREZ; LEONARD VALLES;
MANUEL VIRAMONTES; ROSS
JAUREGUI; JOSE LUIS DEL RIO;
JERRY PAVIA; GARY LAWSON; JOSE
NORIEGA; KEVIN THOMAS; EDUARDO
SANCHEZ; RAUL VARELA, JR.; JAMES
W. ISBORN; ALEX VALLEJO; ISAAC
DAZA; DON COOK; STEPHEN
WERTHINGTON; MARIANO GARCIA;
JOSEPH GALLEGOS; MICHAEL
JORDAN; JOSHUA STEVEN
TEUTSCHMAN; ROBERT LEON;
STEPHEN WORTHINGTON; PHILLIP
ALARCON; ANGEL E. ESPINOZA,
Petitioners.
7803
7804 IN RE JORDAN
TERRI JORDAN; DONALD R. JARVIS;
CESAR CERVANTES; JIM CANALES;
HECTOR ARZOLA; FRANCISCO
MONTIJO; GEORGE ELIZARDO;
STEVEN W. FIERRO; ARI
GALINDOROJO; MARK CORONADO;
THOMAS GARCIA; MICHAEL RAMOS;
JESSE RODRIGUEZ, JR.; ERIC
ROMERO; MARTIN GUEVARRA; JOSE
OCHOA; ROBERT TORRES; FREDERICK
WIDMAYE; RAMON URIBE; RICHARD
GUTIERREZ; LEONARD VALLES;
MANUEL VIRAMONTES; ROSS
JAUREGUI; JOSE LUIS DEL RIO;
JERRY PAVIA; ANGEL E. ESPINOZA;
GARY LAWSON; JOSE NORIEGA;
KEVIN THOMAS; EDUARDO SANCHEZ;
RAUL VARELA, JR.; JAMES W.
ISBORN; ALEX VALLEJO; ISAAC
DAZA; DON COOK; STEPHEN
WERTHINGTON; MARIANO GARCIA;
JOSEPH GALLEGOS; MICHAEL
JORDAN; JOSHUA STEVEN
TEUTSCHMAN; ROBERT LEON;
STEPHEN WORTHINGTON; PHILLIP
ALARCON,
Petitioners,
IN RE JORDAN 7805
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS
ANGELES,
Respondent. No. 09-72379
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, D.C. No.
Respondent and Real Party in 2:09-cv-01887-
Interest, FMC-JC
v. OPINION
ASSORTED FIREARMS,
MOTORCYCLES AND OTHER
PERSONAL PROPERTY,
Petitioners and Real Parties in
Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 3, 2010—Pasadena, California
Filed June 1, 2010
Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Harry Pregerson, and
Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Pregerson
7806 IN RE JORDAN
COUNSEL
Eric Honig, Marina Del Rey, California, and Richard M. Bar-
nett, San Diego, California, for the petitioners.
IN RE JORDAN 7807
Steven R. Welk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, for the respondent/real party in interest.
OPINION
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Terri Jordan and others seek a writ of mandamus ordering
the district court to direct the government to return motorcy-
cles seized in connection with a criminal investigation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and deny the peti-
tion.
“A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary or drastic remedy,
used only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of
its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its
authority when it is its duty to do so.” DeGeorge v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). Mandamus is not warranted where
the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the district court clearly
erred. Id.
[1] The only issue here is whether the district court clearly
erred in determining that, when the government has failed to
provide notice of a seizure in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(1)(A), § 983(a)(1)(F) does not compel the govern-
ment to return seized property before initiating a judicial for-
feiture proceeding. Petitioners concede that this circuit has
never addressed this legal issue. The district court surveyed
decisions from other circuits, which are divided, before con-
cluding that the statute does not require the return of seized
property. The district court did not clearly err in that determi-
nation.
[2] Furthermore, Petitioners have not demonstrated that
they have “no other adequate means” to achieve the return of
7808 IN RE JORDAN
their motorcycles. In re Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court, 586 F.3d
703, 708 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioners can litigate the civil judi-
cial forfeiture action. They contend that such relief is not an
adequate substitute for the immediate return of the motorcy-
cles pursuant to § 983(a)(1)(F) because the forfeiture action
will not conclude for another two to three years. To demon-
strate that other relief is not adequate, however, Petitioners
must demonstrate that they will suffer a greater harm than
“the mere cost and delay that are the regrettable, yet normal,
features of our imperfect legal system.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 163 F.3d 530, 535 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other
grounds by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 205 (2003).
Petitioners may also request the immediate return of their
property under 18 U.S.C. § 983(f)(1). Petitioners argue that
such a request would be futile because the district court
retains the discretion as to whether to grant relief under
§ 983(f)(1). But an alternative remedy need only be available,
not guaranteed.
The petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.