# John E. Wiren v. Donald Eide, as District Director of the Bureau of Customs

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 9, 1976 · 542 F.2d 757

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463137

## Case

- **Full name:** John E. WIREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald EIDE, as District Director of the Bureau of Customs, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 9, 1976
- **Citations:** 542 F.2d 757
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chambers
- **Judges:** Chambers, Koelsch, Kilkenny
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463137

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 compensati…
- 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
- recognizing due process right not to be denied hearing to contest seizure and forfeiture of property for persons unable to post bond

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463137. Public record. Not legal advice.