United States of America v. Morris Duane Buckles

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MORRIS DUANE BUCKLES,
Claimant - Appellant,
$15,010 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant.
No. 09-35493
D.C. No. 4:04-cv-00081-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-35493 2
Morris Duane Buckles appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion to dismiss and its summary judgment in favor of the United States in
the government’s civil forfeiture action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly denied Buckles’s motion to dismiss after rejecting
his contentions that the civil forfeiture proceeding constituted double jeopardy and
that the government was required to bring the forfeiture action during his criminal
trial. See United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 292 (1996) (“[C]ivil forfeitures
are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1123
(9th Cir. 2005) (“The government may seek the forfeiture of property in either a
civil or a criminal proceeding.”)
However, the district court granted summary judgment without giving
Buckles fair notice of the requirements and possible consequences of a summary
judgment motion, a requirement under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.
1998) (en banc). Therefore, we vacate summary judgment and remand. Upon
remand, if the government again seeks summary judgment, the district court should
consider United States v. $ 191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1063 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

09-35493 3
Cir. 1994) (evidence which is the product of an illegal search or seizure must be
excluded in the civil forfeiture hearing).
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --