Okafor v. United States, No. 14-17087 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter DEA agents seized $99,500 in cash from plaintiff's carry-on bag at San Francisco International Airport, the DEA sent plaintiff a notice on May 1, 2013, informing plaintiff that the money was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881 as a result of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The notice stated that June 5, 2013 was the deadline to file a contest of the forfeiture. On June 4th, 2013, plaintiff's attorney tendered plaintiff's claim to FedEx for overnight delivery to the DEA, but the DEA did not receive the claim until June 6th. Plaintiff eventually filed a motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), arguing that the DEA had wrongfully deemed his claim untimely and that the district court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to toll the filing deadline. The district court held that it had equitable jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion, but denied plaintiff's motion on the merits. The court treated section 983(e) of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C. 983(e), as a claim-processing rule. In this case, the district court correctly determined that it had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's motion for equitable relief because there is no clear jurisdictional limitation to CAFRA. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that he pursued his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion.
Court Description: Forfeiture. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of claimant’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for return of $99,500 in cash that was seized by Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents from claimant’s carry-on bag at San Francisco International Airport. The DEA sent claimant a notice informing him that the money was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881 because it was used in, or acquired as a result of, a violation of the Controlled Substance Act. The DEA subsequently deemed claimant’s claim to contest the forfeiture as untimely. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear claimant’s motion for equitable relief. The panel treated 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act as a claim-processing rule, and held that it posed no clear jurisdictional limitation. The panel held that the district court did not err in holding that claimant was not entitled to equitable tolling because FedEx’s purported delivery delay of his claim did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would justify equitable tolling. OKAFOR V. UNITED STATES 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.