Ramirez

MEMORANDUM **

Raul Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion challenging the forfeiture of $4,527. We review de novo, United, States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir.2003), and we vacate and remand.

Ramirez contends that the forfeited property should be returned to him because he did not receive notice of the forfeiture proceedings. Because Ramirez was being held in federal custody at the time the government sent notices of the forfeiture to his Nevada and Arizona home addresses, the notice was not “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise” Ramirez of the pendency of the civil forfeiture proceedings. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); see also Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 40 , 93 S.Ct. 30 , 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972) (per curiam). We therefore vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

The government contends that Ramirez’s Rule 41(g) motion is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (a)’s six-year statute of limitations and that, regardless of the…