USA V. 2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, VEHI, No. 19-10305 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-10305 D.C. No. 1:18-sw-00308-LJO-BAM-1 v. 2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, VEHICLE ID NO. 3GCPCREC4FG173943, CA, License Plate 68914H2, MEMORANDUM* Defendant, v. ANASTASIA PURNELL, Movant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Anastasia Purnell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking return of a 2015 Chevrolet Silverado seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because there are no criminal proceedings pending against Purnell, Rule 41 has no application here. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993). However, the district court had discretion to exercise equitable jurisdiction over Purnell’s motion. See id. The court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise such jurisdiction because Purnell failed to challenge the forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e). See Okafor v. United States, 846 F.3d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 2017) (§ 983(e) provides the remedy for setting aside a declaration of forfeiture); Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 325 (listing factors that govern district court’s exercise of equitable jurisdiction, including whether the movant has an adequate remedy at law). The parties’ requests for judicial notice are granted. AFFIRMED. 2 19-10305

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.