935 F.2d 274
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Martin Allen JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
DEA, OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 1991.*
Decided June 4, 1991.
Before HUG, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Martin Allen Johnson, a federal prisoner housed in Washington state, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) of his "Motion for Action to Contest Forfeiture." We review de novo. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1989).
In this action, Johnson sought to contest the forfeiture of his automobile, which was seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4) for having been used in the transportation of illegal drugs. Although forfeiture proceedings had not yet been initiated by the government at the time Johnson filed his action, he argued that the government's eight-month delay in initiating forfeiture proceedings was unreasonable. Johnson did not seek damages from the delay, but asked only that the court either order the DEA to return his automobile or institute forfeiture proceedings.
After Johnson appealed the district court's dismissal of his action, the government instituted forfeiture proceedings. See United States v. One 1984 Pontiac Firebird, No. 90-35331, memorandum disposition (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 1991). Because Johnson has received the relief he sought by filing this action, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1989).