UNITED STATES v. << (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Anastasia Purnell appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking return of a 2015 Chevrolet Silverado seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Because there are no criminal proceedings pending against Purnell, Rule 41 has no application here. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993). However, the district court had discretion to exercise equitable jurisdiction over Purnell's motion. See id. The court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise such jurisdiction because Purnell failed to challenge the forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e). See Okafor v. United States, 846 F.3d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 2017) (§ 983(e) provides the remedy for setting aside a declaration of forfeiture); Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 325 (listing factors that govern district court's exercise of equitable jurisdiction, including whether the movant has an adequate remedy at law).

The parties’ requests for judicial notice are granted.

AFFIRMED.