Force v. Salazar, No. 10–15306.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before: PROCTER HUG, JR., BARRY G. SILVERMAN, and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges. |
| Citation | 646 F.3d 1240 |
| Parties | CONSERVATION FORCE, a non-profit corporation; Miguel Madero Blasquez and Colin G. Crook, hunters, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Ken SALAZAR, United States Secretary of Interior; Rowan Gould, United States Fish & Wildlife Service Acting Director; Daniel G. Shillito, Pacific Southwest Region Solicitor; Carolyn Lown, Pacific Southwest Region Assistant Solicitor; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 10–15306. |
| Decision Date | 22 July 2011 |
646 F.3d 1240
11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9247
11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,093
CONSERVATION FORCE, a non-profit corporation; Miguel Madero Blasquez and Colin G. Crook, hunters, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
Ken SALAZAR, United States Secretary of Interior; Rowan Gould, United States Fish & Wildlife Service Acting Director; Daniel G. Shillito, Pacific Southwest Region Solicitor; Carolyn Lown, Pacific Southwest Region Assistant Solicitor; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Defendants–Appellees.
No. 10–15306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2011.Filed July 22, 2011.
[646 F.3d 1240]
John J. Jackson, III, Conservation Force, Metairie, LA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.Kurt G. Kastorf, Charles R. Scott, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:09–cv–01170–VRW.Before: PROCTER HUG, JR., BARRY G. SILVERMAN, and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This case involves the seizure and administrative forfeiture of two leopard trophies by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) from two hunters, Patricio Miguel Madero Blasquez and Colin Crook (“plaintiffs”), who attempted to import the leopard trophies from African countries without proper export permits. Plaintiffs and Conservation Force, a nonprofit
[646 F.3d 1241]
entity, filed suit against federal defendants Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Department of the Interior), Rowan Gould (Director of FWS), Daniel Shillito (Regional Solicitor for the Department of the Interior), Carolyn Lown (Regional Assistant Solicitor for the Department of the Interior), and the FWS asserting that the administrative forfeiture of their leopard trophies violated the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause, and the Due Process Clause. We affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' CAFRA and constitutional claims.
In this case, plaintiffs separately hunted leopards in two different African countries and then attempted to import the leopard trophies with deficient export permits. In July 2007, Blasquez hunted his leopard in Zambia with a hunting excursion company. On February 6, 2008, Blasquez attempted to import the leopard trophy (one skull and skin) into the United States through San Francisco without an export permit from the Zambian authorities. Blasquez told authorities that the airline had lost the Zambian export permit. A month later, FWS received a photocopy of a Zambian export permit that lacked the legally required signature, and there was no reason provided for supplying a copy instead of the original. On March 12, 2008, the FWS seized the trophy.
In June 2007, Crook hunted his leopard in Namibia. On March 3, 2008, Crook attempted to import his leopard trophy (one skull and skin) into the United States through San Francisco with an expired export permit from Namibia. The FWS later received an email from Namibian authorities stating that it considered the trophy legally exported under a newly issued permit, even though Crook had used an expired permit. On March 18, 2008, the FWS seized the leopard trophy.
On April 2, 2008, FWS sent each plaintiff a Notice of Seizure and Proposed Forfeiture regarding their leopard trophies. This notice provided that the plaintiffs should, by May 24, 2008, file either a petition for remission with the Office of the Solicitor or file a claim to initiate a judicial forfeiture proceeding. Both plaintiffs chose to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFarland v. City of Clovis, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1530 AWI SMS
...a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir.2011) ; Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys. , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(......
-
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 17–cv–02185–BLF
...for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’ " Conservation Force v. Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) ). When determining whether a claim has been stated,......
-
Mou v. SSC San Jose Operating Co., Case No. 5:18-cv-01911-EJD
...Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims alleged in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Conservation Force v. Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , sub nom Blasquez v. Salazar , 565 U.S. 1261, 132 S. Ct. 1762, 182 L.Ed.2d 532 (Mar. 19, 2012). The ......
-
In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., Case No. 18-md-02827-EJD
...Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims alleged in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011). The complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausi......
-
McFarland v. City of Clovis, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1530 AWI SMS
...a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir.2011) ; Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys. , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(......
-
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 17–cv–02185–BLF
...for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’ " Conservation Force v. Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) ). When determining whether a claim has been stated,......
-
In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., Case No. 18-md-02827-EJD
...Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims alleged in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011). The complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausi......
-
Dunakin v. Quigley, CASE NO. C14-0567JLR
...of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the pleadings, documents attached to the pleadings, and docume......