F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
July 5, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG CLYMORE, also known as Cliff
G. Wilson, also known as Wayne Samuel
Powell, also known as Kevin Riley, also
known as Steve Brown, also known as
James Burchell,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 02-2264
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico
(D.C. No. CIV-96-763 JC/RLP)
Jody Neal-Post (Christal K. Girsham with her on the briefs), Albuquerque, New Mexico,
for Plaintiff - Appellant.
Stephen R. Kotz, Assistant U.S. Attorney (David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, with
him on the briefs), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant - Appellee.
Before MURPHY, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and O’BRIEN,
Circuit Judge.
O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
This is the third appeal by Craig Clymore arising from his motion for return of
property filed pursuant to Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 In the
latest remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government
and denied Clymore’s motions to reconsider. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand.
I. Background
On November 23, 1991, Craig Clymore (Clymore) and co-defendant Glen Zacker
(Zacker) were arrested near Carlsbad, New Mexico, after landing a Cessna TU 206
aircraft (Tail No. N735ZG) containing 785.6 pounds of marijuana. As a result of the
arrest, federal agents seized four items of property: the Cessna airplane, $4,510 in U.S.
currency, an ICOM portable transceiver, and three million Mexican pesos.
Clymore and Zacker pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and
Effective December 1, 2002, Rule 41 was amended and reorganized. What was
1
formerly Rule 41(e) is now found at Rule 41(g) with minor stylistic changes. Rule 41(g)
provides:
Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure
of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The
motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must
receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the
motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable
conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.
FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(g). For purposes of this appeal and to remain consistent with the
parties’ briefs, we will continue to refer to the rule as Rule 41(e).
2
18 U.S.C. § 2. In December 1992, Clymore was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment.
The four items seized were administratively forfeited.
On June 4, 1996, Clymore filed a pro se motion for return of property pursuant to
Rule 41(e). In the motion, he sought the return of nine items of property, the four items
mentioned above and five other items seized in unrelated matters. Clymore and the
government filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions were referred to a
magistrate judge, who recommended granting the government’s motion and denying
Clymore’s motion. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations.
Clymore appealed.
We affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part. See Clymore v. United
States, 164 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 1999) (Clymore I). We determined that because the five
items seized in unrelated matters were forfeited by state proceedings or in another federal
district, the district court lacked jurisdiction over these items. Id. at 571-72, 574-75. As
to the other four items, however, we concluded Clymore had not received constitutionally
adequate notice regarding their administrative forfeiture. Id. at 572. Consequently, we
held the administrative forfeiture of these items was void and must be vacated. Id. at 573.
Because the five-year statute of limitations for forfeiting these items had run, we
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, including a determination
of whether the government had any defense to the operation of the statute of limitations.
Id. at 573-75.
3
On remand, the government filed another motion for summary judgment, arguing,
inter alia, that the statute of limitations for filing a civil forfeiture complaint should be
equitably tolled. The matter was again referred to a magistrate judge, who agreed with
the government and recommended the statute of limitations be equitably tolled from the
date of the administrative forfeiture until the date Clymore I found the forfeiture to be
constitutionally defective. On April 26, 2000, the district court issued an order, adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Clymore’s claims. Clymore again
appealed. One day later, the government filed a civil forfeiture complaint in rem against
the four items of property (Case No. CV-00-683). The forfeiture action was stayed by a
magistrate judge pending the outcome of the appeal. It remains stayed to this day.
On appeal, we rejected Clymore’s argument that equitable tolling did not apply to
civil forfeiture proceedings. See United States v. Clymore, 245 F.3d 1195, 1197-98 (10th
Cir. 2001) (Clymore II). However, we determined the district court had relied on a
mistake of fact in concluding that equitable tolling applied. Id. at 1198. Accordingly,
despite noting that equitable tolling did not appear to apply under the facts of the case, we
remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the equitable tolling issue. Id. at
1199.
We also rejected Clymore’s argument that the property should be immediately
returned to him because the administrative forfeiture proceedings had been vacated by
Clymore I. Id. at 1199. We concluded that even if the statute of limitations prevented the
4
government from initiating new forfeiture proceedings against the property, Clymore was
not automatically entitled to the return of the property. Id. at 1200. Rather, we
determined that if the government could establish that the property falls under the
auspices of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a),2 the government could be awarded quiet title to the
property in a Rule 41(e) proceeding and its right to the property could only be disgorged
2
This statute provides:
(a) Subject property
The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right
shall exist in them:
(1) All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed,
or acquired in violation of this subchapter.
(2) All raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or
intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing,
or exporting any controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this
subchapter.
....
(4) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are
intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale,
receipt, possession, or concealment of property described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9).
....
(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished
or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or
listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an
exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to
be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.
....
(8) All controlled substances which have been possessed in violation of this
subchapter . . . .
5
by “a judicial or administrative order concluding that the property should be returned to
an innocent owner or [an owner] aggrieved by an illegal seizure [of the property].” Id. at
1202. In summary, we stated:
[A]fter we held in Clymore I that the administrative forfeitures were void, the
district court had before it a party [the government] with statutorily-
permissible legal possession of, but an unperfected right to title to, what
appears to be derivative contraband and instrumentalities, and a claimant
[Clymore] alleging a right to lawful possession and the equitable right to return
of that property. The court may still quiet title to the property in favor of the
government as to Mr. Clymore in a properly-supported motion for summary
judgment. However, in order to do so, it must determine that no genuine
issues of material fact exist regarding the character of the property as § 881(a)
property, Mr. Clymore’s status as an innocent owner, and the legality of the
government’s seizure and possession.
Id. at 1202-03 (citation omitted).
On remand, the district court first determined the government was not entitled to
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. However, it further concluded Clymore was
not entitled to the return of property because (1) it was § 881(a) property, (2) Clymore
was not an innocent owner, and (3) the seizure of the property was constitutional.
Consequently, on April 18, 2002, the district court granted summary judgment to the
government.
Subsequently, Clymore filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which the court
denied by order dated June 20, 2002. In this order, the district court, upon request of the
government, addressed Clymore’s claim of ownership in the subject property and
concluded he had failed to demonstrate a “rightful possessory interest in the property.”
6
(Appellant’s App. at 122.) Specifically, as to the Cessna aircraft, the court found the
government had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Zacker, not Clymore,
was the purchaser and owner. Thereafter, Clymore filed another motion for
reconsideration, which was also denied.
On September 19, 2002, Clymore filed a notice of appeal. This appeal was
consolidated, for procedural purposes only, with United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, No.
02-2340, which is addressed in a separate opinion. On appeal, Clymore only seeks return
of the actual property or its monetary equivalent.
II. Timeliness of Appeal
The government argues we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Clymore
failed to file his notice of appeal within sixty days of the district court’s April 18, 2002
order. Relying on United States v. Marsh, 700 F.2d 1322 (10th Cir. 1983),3 the
government asserts that although Clymore’s initial motion for partial reconsideration
tolled the appeal period, his second motion for reconsideration did not. Thus, it alleges
that our review, if any, is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying Clymore’s second motion for reconsideration. We disagree.
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure4 provides that “[e]very judgment
3
In Marsh, we held that a defendant’s motion for reconsideration of a trial court's
order denying a motion for a new trial did not toll the time in which to file his notice of
appeal. 700 F.2d at 1324-28.
4
Although Clymore’s action is brought pursuant to Rule 41(e), a federal rule of
criminal procedure, “[p]roceedings surrounding the motion for return of property seized
7
shall be set forth on a separate document.”5 Rule 4(a)(1)(A),(B) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure requires a party in a civil case to file a notice of appeal within thirty
or sixty days “after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.” Subsection (a)(7) of
that same rule provides that a judgment or order is entered “when it is entered in
compliance with Rule[] 58 . . . of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Here, a separate
judgment was never entered. “The Supreme Court has recognized that the separate-
document rule must be ‘mechanically applied’ in determining whether an appeal is
timely.” Allison v. Bank-One Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 1232 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting
in a criminal case are civil in nature. . . .” United States v. Maez, 915 F.2d 1466, 1468
(10th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). Therefore, we apply the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for determining whether Clymore’s appeal was timely. See United States v.
Madden, 95 F.3d 38, 39 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996).
5
Rule 58 was amended effective December 1, 2002. Under the new amendments,
a separate document is still required for both initial and amended judgments. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 58(a)(1). However, “to ensure that appeal time does not linger on indefinitely,”
the amendments added a 150-day rule when no separate judgment is entered. FED. R.
CIV. P. 58(b); Advisory Committee’s Notes to 2002 Amendments. Specifically, if a
separate judgment is required to be entered (as in this case) and the district court fails to
do so (also as in this case), then the judgment is considered “entered” 150 days from entry
of the order on the civil docket. Id. Rule 4(a)(7) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, defining when a judgment is considered entered, was similarly amended.
Whether this amendment should be applied retroactively in this case is irrelevant
because our conclusion would be the same under either version of the rule. Under the
amendments, the district court’s order in this case would be considered “entered” on
September 15, 2002, 150 days from April 18, 2002, the date the district court’s order was
entered on the civil docket. Therefore, Clymore’s September 19, 2002 notice of appeal,
filed within sixty days of September 15, 2002, is timely. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B)
(“When the United States . . . is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party
within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.”).
8
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386 (1978)). “[A]bsent a formal judgment, a
district court’s order remains appealable.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Although parties
may waive Rule 58's separate-document requirement by allowing an appeal to go
forward, such waiver cannot be used to defeat appellate jurisdiction.” Id. at 1233
(citation omitted). In the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, an appellate court
may accept jurisdiction and address the merits of an appeal, even in the absence of a
separate judgment, rather than require the parties to return to the district court to obtain
one. Id.
Based on the above, Clymore’s appeal is timely and we accept jurisdiction of this
appeal, even in the absence of a separate Rule 58 judgment.
III. Sovereign Immunity
Clymore seeks the return of the four items seized from him at the time of his arrest,
if obtainable, or their monetary equivalent. Based on the record, the Cessna aircraft was
apparently transferred to the Eddy County Sheriff’s Office on March 7, 1992. It appears
the ICOM transceiver, U.S. currency and Mexican pesos were administratively forfeited
sometime in 1992. At oral argument, the government stated it was no longer in
possession of the subject property. The first issue that must be addressed is whether Rule
41(e) is the appropriate vehicle to seek the return of seized property which the
government no longer possesses. More specifically, the question is whether sovereign
immunity bars an award of monetary damages against the government in a Rule 41(e)
9
action when the property cannot be returned.6 We have yet to address the issue in a
published opinion and the remaining circuits are split, with the majority finding that
monetary damages against the government in a Rule 41(e) action are barred by sovereign
immunity.
In United States v. Jones, 225 F.3d 468, 468 (4th Cir. 2000), Jones filed a Rule
41(e) motion for the return of property seized at his arrest. The government indicated that
some of the property sought had been “destroyed or disposed of otherwise.” Id. at 469.
The district court granted Jones’ motion as to the property that had not been destroyed but
denied the motion as to the remaining property. Id. In so ordering, the district court
determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Jones’ claim for damages arising out of the
destruction of the property. Id. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 470. It
held that sovereign immunity deprives a court of jurisdiction to award damages in a Rule
41(e) action where the property has been destroyed by the government. Id. at 469-70. In
a footnote, the Court noted it was bound to honor the government’s sovereign immunity
even though to do so could result in the government being able to defeat jurisdiction by
the unilateral act of destroying the property sought to be returned. Id. at 470 n.3.
6
We raise the sovereign immunity issue sua sponte. See Villescas v. Abraham,
311 F.3d 1253, 1256 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002) (although not raised before the district court,
sovereign immunity “cannot be waived by government attorneys, and we are required to
address it even though raised for the first time on appeal”); see also Nelson v. Geringer,
295 F.3d 1082, 1098 n.16 (10th Cir. 2002) (discussing whether sua sponte consideration
of sovereign immunity is obligatory or discretionary). We find supplemental briefing
unnecessary.
10
In United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001), Ramirez
filed a Rule 41(e) motion for the return of his military card, Colombian citizenship card,
and navigational license, all which had been seized from him at the time of his arrest. In
response, the government stated the documents had been destroyed. Id. Because the
property had been destroyed, the district court denied the defendant’s motion. Id. On
appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the government’s mere allegation that the property
had been destroyed was insufficient evidence of the property’s destruction. Id. at 1314.
Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to allow the government to present
evidence of the property’s destruction. Id. The Court proceeded to state that even if
sufficient evidence is presented demonstrating the property’s destruction, the district
court could fashion an equitable remedy under Rule 41(e). Id. at 1314-15. However, the
Court held that an award of money damages against the government under Rule 41(e) was
barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 1315-16. In a footnote, the Court stated, “[b]ecause
Ramirez brought his claim under only Rule 41(e), we express no view as to whether
alternative legal avenues may afford [him] some relief.” Id. at 1316 n.10.
In United States v. Hall, 269 F.3d 940, 941 (8th Cir. 2001), Hall filed a Rule 41(e)
motion seeking the return of property seized by the government. The district court
granted the motion and the government returned some of the property to him. Id. The
remaining property, however, could not be returned because it had been turned over to a
towing service and was no longer in the government’s custody. Id. Consequently, Hall
11
filed an amended motion seeking money damages in lieu of the missing property. Id.
The district court granted the motion, awarding Hall the fair market value of the missing
property and rejecting the government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to award
money damages under Rule 41(e). Id. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed and
remanded. Id. Although recognizing its previous holding that Rule 41(e) proceedings are
not moot merely because the government no longer possesses the subject property, it held
that because Rule 41(e) does not contain the explicit waiver of sovereign immunity
required to authorize monetary relief against the government, the district court exceeded
its Rule 41(e) jurisdiction in awarding monetary relief. Id. at 942-43. However, rather
than order dismissal, the Court remanded for a determination of whether Hall could rely
on an alternative legal remedy, such as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Id. at 943.
It stated: “[W]hen a district court conducting a Rule 41(e) proceeding learns that the
government no longer possesses property that is the subject of the motion to return, the
court should grant the movant (particularly a movant proceeding pro se such as Hall) an
opportunity to assert an alternative claim for money damages.” Id.
In Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 986 (5th Cir. 1998), the Fifth Circuit
similarly held that money damages against the government in a Rule 41(e) proceeding are
barred by sovereign immunity. There, Pena filed a Rule 41(e) motion for return of
property which the government had destroyed. Id. at 98. Although affirming the district
court’s dismissal of his Rule 41(e) motion, the Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court
12
to allow Pena, a pro se litigant, the opportunity to amend his pleadings to state a claim
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Id. at 987. Although
recognizing that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to Bivens claims had run,
the Court found that under FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c)(2), Pena’s amendments to his pleadings
would relate back to the date of his original pleading. Id.
Lastly, in United States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2000), the claimants
filed a Rule 41(e) motion for the return of property seized by government agents. In their
motion, they largely sought monetary damages based on their assertion that the
government had destroyed most of the seized property. Id. The district court awarded the
claimants monetary relief for the destroyed property. Id. Although the government did
not appeal the district court’s decision, in its responsive brief, it asserted the district court
was without jurisdiction to award monetary damages against it in a Rule 41(e) action due
to its sovereign immunity. Id. at 412. The Third Circuit agreed. Id. Although
recognizing that Rule 41(e) allows a district court to award equitable relief, it found that
this equitable power did not override the government’s sovereign immunity. Id. at 413-
14.
Contrary to the above cases, the Second and Ninth Circuits have allowed monetary
damages in a Rule 41(e) action where the property has been destroyed by the government.
In United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987), Martinson filed a
Rule 41(e) motion, seeking the return of nine rifles seized from him at the time of his
13
arrest. The district court denied the motion and Martinson appealed. Id. After oral
argument, the government informed the Ninth Circuit that federal agents had destroyed
the guns six months prior to oral argument. Id. The Ninth Circuit held it had jurisdiction
over the appeal despite the destruction of the subject property. Id. at 1369. In so holding,
the Court stated: “When a citizen has invoked the jurisdiction of a court by moving for
return of his property, we do not think that the government should be able to destroy
jurisdiction by its own conduct.” Id. at 1368. It remanded the case to the district court,
stating Martinson should be allowed to amend his motion to request damages if he so
desires. Id. at 1370.
In Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156, 159 (2d Cir. 1992), the Second Circuit,
relying on Martinson, held that a Rule 41(e) motion does not become moot merely
because the government no longer possesses the subject property and that an award of
damages may be appropriate as an equitable remedy. To the extent the claimant had an
adequate remedy at law under the FTCA, the Court held the district court should have
liberally construed the Rule 41(e) motion as a complaint under the FTCA. Id. at 160.
We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars
monetary relief in a Rule 41(e) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the
property. Neither Mora nor Martinson addressed sovereign immunity. Rather, their
holdings rested in large part on equitable considerations. However, “fairness or policy
reasons cannot by themselves waive sovereign immunity.” United States v. $30,006.25 in
14
U.S. Currency, 236 F.3d 610, 614 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding sovereign immunity
prohibited an award of prejudgment interest to the claimant upon the return of his
property).
Based on the above, to the extent the government is no longer in possession of the
property and Clymore seeks monetary relief, sovereign immunity bars his claim.7
Because the status of the property was raised for the first time at oral argument, it is
necessary to remand the matter to the district court for findings regarding the
government’s possession of the property. Should the district court determine on remand
that the government is no longer in possession of the property, it should vacate its prior
order granting the United States summary judgment and dismiss Clymore’s Rule 41 for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IV. Conclusion
We REVERSE and REMAND this matter to the district court for further findings
consistent with this opinion. We DENY Clymore’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and his request that any remand be
assigned to a different district court judge. There being no objection by the government,
we GRANT Clymore’s Motion to Augment the Record on Appeal, which was
provisionally granted on May 8, 2003.
7
Because Clymore seeks relief under Rule 41(e), we assert no opinion on whether
other forms of relief are available to him.
15