Opinion
No. 19-10305
05-14-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, VEHICLE ID NO. 3GCPCREC4FG173943, CA, License Plate 68914H2, Defendant, v. ANASTASIA PURNELL, Movant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:18-sw-00308-LJO-BAM-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding 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.
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.