United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Harry W. Pruitt, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 91 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1996)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 91 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted March 4, 1996. *Decided July 24, 1996

Before: SKOPIL, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Defendant Harry E. Pruitt, Jr., appeals interlocutorily the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictments against him on double jeopardy grounds. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977). We affirm.

The United States Supreme Court recently held that in rem civil forfeiture proceedings generally do not constitute "punishment" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Ursery, Nos. 95-345, 95-346, 64 U.S.L.W. 4565, 4566, 4571 (U.S. June 24, 1996). The Court specifically held that forfeitures pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 and 18 U.S.C. § 981 were "neither 'punishment' nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause." Id. at 4571-72.

In Pruitt's case, the forfeiture at issue was instituted pursuant to these same statutes. Therefore, we conclude that the forfeiture cannot constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The denial of Pruitt's motion to dismiss the indictments against him is

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.