## Facts

- U-Series International Services, Ltd. (U-Series), an electronics business, owned a shipment of consumer electronics that was seized by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
- The DEA seized the electronics because it believed U-Series was laundering money for drug traffickers.
- After the seizure, the DEA initiated forfeiture proceedings for the property.
- DEA Agent William Snider oversaw or participated in the forfeiture process relevant to U-Series’s claims.
- U-Series contended that the government’s forfeiture notice was not adequate and therefore violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process requirement.
- U-Series also asserted that the seizure and retention of the electronics amounted to conversion and sought relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- In addition, U-Series sued Snider individually under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics*, alleging a Fifth Amendment violation tied to the notice/forfeiture process.
- U-Series sought return of the electronics rather than money damages.
- The United States/DEA and Snider moved for summary judgment, arguing sovereign immunity (as to the United States) and qualified immunity (as to Snider).

## Issues

1. Whether U-Series could use a federal civil action to obtain return of seized electronics after the DEA initiated (and/or completed) forfeiture proceedings, or whether review was limited to a due-process challenge to notice.
2. Whether the forfeiture notice given by the government satisfied the Fifth Amendment’s due-process standard for notice.
3. Whether the FTCA permitted a conversion claim against the United States for property seized and held by law-enforcement officials in connection with forfeiture proceedings, given limits on the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
4. Whether Agent Snider could be held individually liable under *Bivens* for the alleged Fifth Amendment violation, or whether qualified immunity barred the claim.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the United States/DEA and for Agent Snider and dismissed U-Series’s claims.
- The court treated U-Series’s suit for return of the property as an improper collateral route around the forfeiture framework, allowing at most a limited constitutional inquiry focused on notice.
- The court rejected U-Series’s Fifth Amendment notice challenge, holding that the notice provided in the forfeiture process was constitutionally sufficient.
- The court dismissed the FTCA conversion claim because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for the claim as pleaded, including due to statutory limits applicable to property detained by law-enforcement officers.
- The court dismissed the *Bivens* claim against Snider; because the court found no due-process violation on the notice record and because Snider was entitled to qualified immunity, U-Series could not obtain relief against him individually.

## Legal Principles

- After the government proceeds through the forfeiture process, district-court review of an attempt to recover the property is generally limited; courts will not re-litigate the merits of forfeiture through a separate civil suit, aside from considering whether notice satisfied due process.
- Due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to inform interested parties of the forfeiture and provide a meaningful opportunity to contest it.
- The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity; if a claim falls within an exception to that waiver—such as limits for property detained by law-enforcement officers in connection with seizure/forfeiture—the federal courts lack authority to award relief against the United States on a tort theory like conversion.
- *Bivens* liability requires an actual violation of a constitutional right; even where a plaintiff alleges a constitutional defect in a forfeiture process, an individual federal officer is protected by qualified immunity unless the officer’s conduct violated clearly established law.
- Where the government follows established forfeiture notice procedures that satisfy due process, an individual agent involved in the process is generally not subject to personal liability for constitutional damages, and qualified immunity provides an additional bar.

## Conclusion

In *U-Series International Services, Ltd. v. United States*, the district court entered summary judgment for the government and the individual DEA agent, holding that U-Series’s effort to obtain return of seized electronics could not proceed as an FTCA conversion action or a *Bivens* claim, and that the forfeiture notice met Fifth Amendment due-process requirements; sovereign immunity barred the claim against the United States and qualified immunity protected the agent.


U-Series International Services, Ltd. v. United States, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16562 (1995)