United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BRODRICK JAMAR JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-1378 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota in No. 3:19-cv-00188-ARS, Magis- trate Judge Alice Senechal. ______________________

Decided: June 28, 2023 ______________________

HAMPTON HUNTER BRUTON, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Chapel Hill, NC, argued for plaintiff-appel- lant. Also represented by LAWRENCE C. MOORE, III.

MELISSA HELEN BURKLAND, United States Attorney's Office, United States Department of Justice, Fargo, ND, ar- gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MEGAN A. HEALY, JENNIFER KLEMETSRUD PUHL.

DANIEL WOOFTER, Goldstein, Russell & Woofter LLC, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Human Rights Defense Center. Case: 22-1378 Document: 72 Page: 2 Filed: 06/28/2023

2 JENKINS v. US

MATTHEW T. MARTENS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Julia D. Mahoney, Ilya Somin. Also represented by DONNA FARAG, DOUGLAS GATES. ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and STARK, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. Brodrick Jamar Jenkins seeks compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s takings and due process clauses for the federal government’s appropriation of his two vehicles. He agrees that the government properly seized the vehicles pursuant to a criminal investigation, but argues that the government is liable for failing to return them after the completion of the criminal investigation, transferring pos- session of the cars to an impound lot, and selling them or authorizing their sale by the impound lot. The district court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the due pro- cess claim and granted the government’s motion for sum- mary judgment on the takings claim. We vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the takings claim and remand for future proceedings. We affirm the district court’s dismissal on the due process clause for lack of jurisdiction, but without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend. BACKGROUND At issue in this case are two automobiles owned by Mr. Jenkins. He purchased one car, a 1987 Oldsmobile Cut- lass, at the end of 2011 and the other, a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe, in 2012. Mr. Jenkins transferred title to the cars to his mother, Stephanie Buchanan, a few months after pur- chasing each car. However, Mr. Jenkins retained exclusive use of both vehicles. Case: 22-1378 Document: 72 Page: 3 Filed: 06/28/2023

JENKINS v. US 3

In the spring of 2011, the United States Drug Enforce- ment Administration (“DEA”) began investigating Mr. Jen- kins because of suspicions that he was involved in a drug conspiracy. During the investigation, DEA seized the two vehicles, and they were towed to Twin Cities Transport and Recovery’s impound lot. The DEA put a “hold” on the vehi- cles and obtained a search warrant for them. It is not en- tirely clear what a “hold” is, but the parties appear to agree that it had the effect of giving the government control over the vehicles and preventing the impound lot from doing an- ything with the vehicles, such as selling the cars without the government’s authorization. The government obtained a search warrant to search the cars after the seizure. The search warrant was executed on October 24, 2012. On April 10, 2013, in the District of North Dakota, Mr. Jenkins pled guilty to a dru