United States v. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehi ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10305
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:18-sw-00308-LJO-BAM-1
v.
2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, MEMORANDUM*
VEHICLE ID NO. 3GCPCREC4FG173943,
CA, License Plate 68914H2,
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