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

(dissenting):

TUCKER ACT CLAIM

It is settled that the Tucker Act authorizes a judgment for money damages only and if a complaint intermingles a claim for a money judgment with the demand for equitable relief, it is beyond the pale of the Act. Richardson v. Morris, 409 U.S. 464 , 93 S.Ct. 629 , 34 L.Ed.2d 647 (1973). The reason is that the jurisdiction of the district court is concurrent with that of the Court of Claims and the Court of Claims has no power to grant equitable relief. Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 , 82 S.Ct. 1459 , 8 L.Ed.2d 571 (1962). There, Justice Harlan in speaking to the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims — concurrent with the district court under the Act — made it clear that from the very beginning, the Court of Claims had jurisdiction only to award damages, not specific relief. Id. at 557, 82 S.Ct. 1459 . With reference to the jurisdiction of the respective courts, we quote from Richardson v. Morris, supra.

Another Supreme Court case speaking to the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, where the demand for relief was for other than money damages, is United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969). There the…

On his return from Canada in February, 1972, appellant Wiren and the three passengers in his 1970 Volkswagen were stopped and searched at the Blaine, Washington, border station. When a body search of one of the passengers revealed a small quantity of hashish, customs agents seized Wiren’s car as a vehicle used to transport contraband into the United States. 1 Immediately thereafter, Wiren — claiming he had no knowledge of the presence of hashish — petitioned the Secretary of the Treasury under 19 U.S.C. § 1618 for a remission or mitigation of the impending forfeiture of his car. 2 *760 That petition was denied, as was a subsequent appeal to the Bureau of Customs.

In November, 1972, after making an informal telephone inquiry, Wiren received by unregistered mail a letter informing him of the government’s intention to forfeit the vehicle which it had appraised, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1606 , at less than $2500. He then filed a claim in accordance with the provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1608 , but did not post the requisite $250 bond because, as he now alleges, he was indigent at the time. However, there being no statutory procedure for Wiren to call this indigent condition to the…

(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.

542 F.2d 757 John E. WIREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald EIDE, as District Director of the Bureau of Customs, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 74-1169. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 22, 1976. As Corrected July 9, 1976. Richard D. Emery (argued), of The Northwest Washington Legal Services, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant. Charles Mansfield, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellees. Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. KOELSCH, Circuit Judge: 1 On his return from Canada in February, 1972, appellant Wiren and the three passengers in his 1970 Volkswagen were stopped and searched at the Blaine, Washington, border station. When a body search of one of the passengers revealed a small quantity of hashish, customs agents seized Wiren's car as a vehicle used to transport contraband into the United States. 1 Immediately thereafter, Wiren claiming he had no knowledge of the presence of hashish petitioned the Secretary of the Treasury under 19 U.S.C. § 1618 for a remission or mitigation of the impending forfeiture of his car. 2 That petition was denied, as was a subsequent appeal to the Bureau of Customs. 2 In…