Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-90-02839-JPV
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Calvin L. Robinson, claimant of $292,888.04 in currency that was civilly forfeited to the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c), appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion and later motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion to set aside the judgment as void, see United States v. $277,000 in U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491, 1493 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm.
The district court properly determined that Robinson's contentions lacked merit because in the civil forfeiture proceeding, Robinson was not entitled to an indictment, cf. United States v. Dawson, 516 F.2d 796, 800 (9th Cir.1975), a jury trial, see United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St., 164 F.3d 1191, 1198-99 n. 5 (9th Cir.1999), amended by 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir.1999), or the appointment of counsel, see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir.1995).
Robinson's contention that the magistrate judge issued the seizure warrant without probable cause is meritless in the context of this Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion because even if he were correct, it would not void the judgment. See United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a court does not lose jurisdiction over property that was illegally seized); Watts v. Pickney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.1985) (indicating that the judgment is void only if the court acted inconsistently with due process or without subject matter jurisdiction).
Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robinson's November 10, 1999 filing, which the district court construed as a motion for reconsideration. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.