Amin A. RASHID, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, 205 F. App'x 952

OPINION PER CURIAM. Amin Rashid appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I. Rashid was convicted in 1993 of numerous counts of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. The District Court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture of certain real property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). In 1997, the District Court issued a final order of forfeiture, and Rashid appealed. This Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the preliminary order of forfeiture constituted a final order as to Rashid and that he lacked standing to challenge the final order.

United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 97-1421. Rashid has since unsuccessfully challenged the forfeiture numerous times and by way of various motions. See, e.g., United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 01-2770. In 2005, Rashid again challenged the forfeiture; this time by filing a quiet title action in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). Appendix 9a. Upon motion by the United States, the District Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Appendix 6a-7a. The District Court denied Rashid’s motion for reconsideration. II.

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and may affirm on a ground other than that relied on by the District Court. Narin v. Lower Merion School Dist., 206 F.3d 323, 333 n. 8 (3d Cir.2000). A lawsuit must be dismissed if a judgment in the plaintiffs favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Rashid challenges the validity of the forfeiture order and seeks damages and declaratory relief. Appendix at 9a-14a.

As we recognized in Rashid’s prior appeal, the order of criminal forfeiture is part of Rashid’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1); Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995) (“[fjorfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction”). Consequently, a judgment in Rashid’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the action. . A final order of forfeiture is issued after resolution of any third-party claims. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). .

Rashid’s reliance on the view that this Court has yet to reach the merits of the forfeiture order is misplaced. Rashid’s failure to properly appeal the preliminary forfeiture order (which was final as to him), does not allow him to pursue an otherwise impermissible cause of action.