holding that the court had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear plaintiff’s claims that forfeiture proceedings violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and stating that “the fifth amendment and the statutory forfeiture scheme each plainly mandate compensation, at least in restitutionary measure, to the owner of wrongfully seized property”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear plaintiff’s claims that forfeiture proceedings violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and stating that “the fifth amendment and the statutory forfeiture scheme each plainly mandate compensation, at least in restitutionary measure, to the owner of wrongfully seized property”
- holding that, although an indigent party received notice of forfeiture proceedings, his due process rights were violated because application of a bond requirement operated to deprive him of his property interest without according him the opportunity for a hearing
- holding that “the fifth amendment prohibits the federal government from denying the opportunity for a hearing to persons whose property has been seized and is potentially subject to forfeiture solely because of their inability to post a bond”
- finding claimant had no standing to challenge forfeiture proceedings when he received actual notice sufficient to satisfy due process requirements
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
Since, as Judge Koelsch amply demonstrates, the district court had jurisdiction *766 under either the Tucker Act or under the Administrative Procedure Act to hear this action, I do not reach the issue of whether it also had jurisdiction under the mandamus statute. I, therefore, express no view on the question of whether that statute would provide an independent jurisdictional base for this suit.