Gabriel Anthony Doyle v. Drug Enforcement Agency

942 F.2d 791 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Gabriel Anthony DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-16093. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 23, 1991. * Decided Aug. 28, 1991. Before JAMES R. BROWNING, FARRIS and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Gabriel A. Doyle, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his petition for remission of forfeiture for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doyle contends that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 853 , 881 and 883 and 19 U.S.C. § 1608 . 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 3 This court reviews de novo a district court's determination of subject matter jurisdiction. Marshall Leasing, Inc. v. United States, 893 F.2d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir.1990). 4 [21 U.S.C. s] 881(d) makes custom law statutes applicable to civil forfeiture…