Jeffery L. Phillips v. United States of America;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERY L. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16629
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-08172-FJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Jeffery L. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action contesting the Drug Enforcement Agency’s seizure and
forfeiture of $161,868.06 in cash that police officers discovered in Phillips’s
vehicle after he was stopped for speeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16629 2
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Conservation Force v.
Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011), and for an abuse of discretion the
denial of leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s action because Phillips
pursued his administrative remedies by filing a “Petition for Remission or
Mitigation of Forfeiture” and conceded that he received the notice of forfeiture.
See Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242 (“If a party pursues the administrative
path, files a petition for remission, and the petition is denied, the only avenue to set
aside the declaration of forfeiture is if the notice of forfeiture was not received.”
(citing 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
We are not persuaded by Phillips’s remaining contentions, including that his
petition for remission was also meant to be a claim invoking judicial review.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --