United States v. Wilson

• Citation: 699 F.3d 789
• Decision Date: 08 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–1821.,11–1821.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Donald Jamal WILSON, Claimant–Appellant, and $13,963.00, More or Less, in United States Currency (Donald Jamal Wilson, Criminal No. 3:07–0034), Defendant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

699 F.3d 789

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Donald Jamal WILSON, Claimant–Appellant,and$13,963.00, More or Less, in United States Currency (Donald Jamal Wilson, Criminal No. 3:07–0034), Defendant.

No. 11–1821.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Sept. 18, 2012.

Decided: Nov. 8, 2012.

ARGUED:Richard Donald Dietz, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Winston–Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Betty Adkins Pullin, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Adam H. Charnes, Thurston H. Webb, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Winston–Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.

R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge SHEDD and Judge DAVIS joined.

OPINION

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

When the government commenced a civil forfeiture proceeding against $13,963 seized from Donald Wilson in October 2006, based on the money's connection with Wilson's drug-trafficking activity, Wilson defended the action, claiming, without substantial support, that the money came from legitimate sources of income. The district court rejected the defense and entered a judgment of forfeiture. And we affirmed. See United States v. $13,963, More or Less, in U.S. Currency, 382 Fed.Appx. 268 (4th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

Wilson thereafter filed a motion in the district court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), to set aside the forfeiture judgment as void because the government had filed its civil forfeiture complaint beyond the 90–day time limit imposed on it by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3). Wilson contended that the time limit was jurisdictional and therefore was not forfeited by his failure to raise it. The district court agreed with Wilson that the government had filed its forfeiture complaint late, but it denied Wilson's motion because it concluded that the time limit was a statute of limitations that Wilson had to raise, and not a jurisdictional condition.

We agree with the district court. While the time limit imposed on the government by § 983(a)(3) is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional, and because Wilson did not raise this defense during the course of the forfeiture action, he forfeited it. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Wilson's Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the forfeiture judgment.

I

On October 27, 2006, when law enforcement officers stopped Wilson in his automobile to arrest him pursuant to three warrants charging him with drug trafficking offenses, they found $13,963 on his person and seized it. Thereafter, the Drug Enforcement Administration commenced an administrative forfeiture action against the seized money. When Wilson filed a claim for return of the money, his filing triggered a 90–day period during which the government was required, under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3), to file a formal complaint in the district court for civil forfeiture or to take other specified action in pursuit of forfeiture. The government did file such a complaint, albeit 20 days late, and the clerk of court issued a warrant for the arrest of the currency in rem, which the U.S. Marshal duly executed, thereby bringing the res into judicial custody.

Wilson appeared pro se in the civil forfeiture proceeding and asserted a claim that the $13,963 came from legitimate sources of income. The district court, however, concluded that the evidence indisputably established that the money was substantially connected to Wilson's drug-trafficking activities. Accordingly, it entered a summary judgment of forfeiture on October 13, 2009. After affirming the judgment, we issued our mandate on September 1, 2010.

Roughly two weeks later, Wilson, again appearing pro se, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which authorizes a court to give relief from a judgment that is void. Wilson noted that the government had filed its forfeiture complaint late and argued that because the time limit was jurisdictional, the court lacked authority to enter the forfeiture judgment.

The government conceded that it had missed, by 20 days, the deadline imposed by § 983(a)(3). The government disputed, however, that the deadline was jurisdictional, arguing that the provision was instead a statute of limitations that Wilson had failed to raise and therefore had forfeited.

The district court agreed with the government, holding that § 983(a)(3)'s 90–day deadline was not jurisdictional and denying Wilson's Rule 60(b)(4) motion by order dated June 3, 2011. In reaching its conclusion, the court emphasized the absence of express jurisdictional language in § 983(a)(3); the existence of other statutory provisions conferring federal jurisdiction over forfeiture actions; and the absence of a line of cases that had treated § 983(a)(3) as a jurisdictional condition.

From the district court's order denying his motion to set aside the forfeiture judgment as void, Wilson timely filed this appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him.

II

While it is conceded that the government failed to file its civil forfeiture complaint within 90 days after Wilson filed his administrative claim for return of the $13,963, Wilson at no time during the course of the proceedings challenged the government's tardiness.

In these circumstances, we conclude that unless compliance with the 90–day filing requirement imposed by § 983(a)(3) was a condition of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction, Wilson forfeited any objection based on the government's late filing. See Eriline Co. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir.2006) (“As a defense waivable by the inaction of a party, the statute of limitations bears the hallmarks of our adversarial system of justice, a system in which the parties are obliged to present facts and legal arguments before a neutral and relatively passive decision-maker”); Peterson v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 759 F.2d 1161, 1164 (4th Cir.1985) (“It is well settled that the defense of limitations is waived unless asserted promptly by way of answer or motion”). But if the 90–day requirement is a condition of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction, then Wilson would be entitled to an order vacating the judgment of forfeiture. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited. The objections may be resurrected at any point in the litigation”).

Wilson advances several arguments in support of his contention that § 983(a)(3) is jurisdictional. He argues that because the 90–day deadline for the government's action is fixed by statute and not by rule and because that statute mandates the release of the seized assets if the deadline is not met, Congress manifested its intent that the 90–day requirement be “a mandatory, jurisdictional deadline.” He argues further that the legislative history supports his interpretation, as Congress indicated that a purpose in imposing the 90–day time limit on the government was to protect unrepresented property owners, such as him. He argues that failing to interpret the 90–day deadline as jurisdictional would give the government an incentive to file forfeiture actions even when late, thus undermining the statute's purpose of providing protection to property owners.

The government contends that the statutory language gives no indication that the 90–day requirement is jurisdictional. To the contrary, it argues, the provision authorizes extensions after the 90–day period, belying any notion that the 90–day requirement is jurisdictional. Finally, it claims that allowing the forfeiture to stand would not frustrate § 983(a)(3)'s purpose because here the short delay was neither excessive nor in bad faith and because Wilson received his day in court.

We are thus presented with the straightforward question of whether Congress, in imposing a 90–day deadline on the government for filing civil forfeiture actions, created a condition of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction defines a court's power to adjudicate cases or controversies—its adjudicatory authority—and without it, a court can only decide that it does not have jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Because jurisdictional limits define the very foundation of judicial authority, subject matter jurisdiction must, when questioned, be decided before any other matter. See id. at 93–95, 118 S.Ct. 1003. Indeed, “[w]hen a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.” Gonzalez, 132 S.Ct. at 648. For these reasons, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or forfeited, and no other matter can be decided without subject matter jurisdiction. These principles are fundamental and important.

While these principles are fundamental and important, however, the determination of subject matter jurisdiction is often rendered difficult by its close proximity to determinations of whether statutorily specified ingredients of a cause of action have been met or whether claims-processing rules have been followed. See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1243–44, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010). Thus, the Supreme Court has, in the last decade, frequently addressed whether an element of a claim or a claims-processing rule is “jurisdictional.” See, e.g., Gonzalez, 132 S.Ct. 641;Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011); Dolan v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2533, 177 L.Ed.2d 108 (2010); Reed Elsevier, 130 S.Ct. 1237;Union Pac. R.R. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen Gen. Committee of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S....