Amin A. Rashid v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Appeal From the United States District Court For the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-2234
________________
AMIN A. RASHID
Appellant
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-05850)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 2, 2006
BEFORE: FISHER, ALDISERT and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: November 6, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Amin Rashid appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

-- 1 of 3 --

1 A final order of forfeiture is issued after resolution of any third-party claims. See 21
U.S.C. § 853(n).
2
I.
Rashid was convicted in 1993 of numerous counts of wire fraud, mail fraud and
money laundering. The District Court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture of certain
real property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). In 1997, the District Court issued a final
order of forfeiture,1 and Rashid appealed. This Court dismissed the appeal, finding that
the preliminary order of forfeiture constituted a final order as to Rashid and that he lacked
standing to challenge the final order. United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 97-1421. Rashid
has since unsuccessfully challenged the forfeiture numerous times and by way of various
motions. See, e.g., United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 01-2770.
In 2005, Rashid again challenged the forfeiture; this time by filing a quiet title
action in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). Appendix 9a. Upon
motion by the United States, the District Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the
doctrine of collateral estoppel. Appendix 6a-7a. The District Court denied Rashid’s
motion for reconsideration.
II.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and may affirm on a
ground other than that relied on by the District Court. Narin v. Lower Merion School
Dist., 206 F.3d 323, 333 n.8 (3d Cir. 2000).
A lawsuit must be dismissed if a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor would

-- 2 of 3 --

2 Rashid’s reliance on the view that this Court has yet to reach the merits of the
forfeiture order is misplaced. Rashid’s failure to properly appeal the preliminary
forfeiture order (which was final as to him), does not allow him to pursue an otherwise
impermissible cause of action.
3
necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment. Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Rashid challenges the validity of the forfeiture order and seeks
damages and declaratory relief. Appendix at 9a-14a. As we recognized in Rashid’s prior
appeal, the order of criminal forfeiture is part of Rashid’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §
982(a)(1); Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39 (1995) (“[f]orfeiture is an element
of the sentence imposed following conviction”). Consequently, a judgment in Rashid’s
favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence. Accordingly, we will affirm
the District Court’s dismissal of the action.2

-- 3 of 3 --