Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdictional Boundaries for Non-FTCA Post-Conviction Asset Claims: Zane Balsam v. United States

Introduction

Zane Balsam v. United States, 22-10662 (11th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025), addresses the question whether a federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims by a criminal defendant, challenging post-conviction asset seizures not covered by the original forfeiture order. After a fraud conviction and multi-million-dollar restitution and forfeiture orders, Zane Balsam alleged that the government seized additional assets beyond those identified in the consented forfeiture. He sued pro se for money damages and declaratory relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and other theories. The district court dismissed FTCA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and non-FTCA claims for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that sovereign immunity bars these non-FTCA claims outright, vacated the dismissal with prejudice, and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals unanimously concluded:

• The Declaratory Judgment Act does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for these non-FTCA claims;
• Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) cannot confer jurisdiction because Balsam disavowed that rule and did not allege that the contested assets were seized in the Southern District of Florida;
• 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (the restitution-order statute) likewise does not authorize a standalone post-conviction civil action;
• Absent any specific waiver of sovereign immunity, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all non-FTCA claims;
• The dismissal “with prejudice” must be vacated, and the case remanded to dismiss those claims “without prejudice.”

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Smith v. United States, 14 F.4th 1228 (11th Cir. 2021) – Reinforced that waivers of sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed.” Without express consent, courts lack jurisdiction over suits against the United States.
• Zelaya v. United States, 781 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2015) – Held that if no waiver exists for a particular claim, the court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter, LLC, 907 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2018) – Clarified that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself create jurisdiction or waive sovereign immunity.
• Anderson v. United States, 229 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1956) – Established that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not consent to suit by the United States.
• Howell, 425 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2005) – Described the civil-equity nature of Rule 41(g) motions for return of property, and the need to file in the district of seizure.
• United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) – Though not directly on point, influenced the procedural history by requiring resentencing, which ultimately republished the forfeiture and restitution orders at issue.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sovereign Immunity and Waiver Requirements
The court reiterated the bedrock principle that the United States cannot be sued unless it consents, and any waiver must be explicit. Balsam’s non-FTCA claims sought declarations and damages for wrongful seizure of assets, but no statute or rule expressly waived sovereign immunity for such claims.

2. Declaratory Judgment Act
28 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes declaratory relief but “does not, of itself, confer jurisdiction.” The court relied on Fastcase and Anderson to hold that the Act does not waive sovereign immunity or serve as an independent jurisdictional grant.

3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g)
Rule 41(g) provides an in-equity remedy for persons seeking return of seized property—but only in the district where the property was seized. Balsam disavowed reliance on Rule 41(g), and in any event failed to allege that the contested assets were seized within the Southern District of Florida. Thus Rule 41(g) could not furnish jurisdiction.

4. 18 U.S.C. § 3664
Section 3664 governs restitution procedures in criminal cases, including adjustments for changed financial circumstances. The court held that it does not create an independent civil cause of action for declaratory or monetary relief in a standalone suit.

5. Dismissal vs. Dismissal With Prejudice
Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is improper when a court lacks jurisdiction at the outset.

Impact

This decision clarifies and cements the limitations on post-conviction civil actions by criminal defendants challenging government seizures:

• District courts must police sovereign immunity early in cases seeking non-FTCA relief.
• Defendants cannot bootstrap § 3664 or the Declaratory Judgment Act to sidestep jurisdictional prerequisites.
• Rule 41(g) remains the exclusive remedy for return of property, subject to the rule’s territorial and procedural rules.
• Litigants must carefully select the correct forum—e.g., the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act for contract or constitutional takings claims over $10,000—and plead the waiver of immunity with precision.

Going forward, litigants challenging asset seizures beyond a criminal forfeiture or restitution order must rely on explicitly authorized statutory waivers or risk early dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Sovereign Immunity: The legal doctrine that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. Courts have no power over the government unless Congress or the Constitution expressly allows it.
• Waiver of Sovereign Immunity: A statute or rule that explicitly permits suits against the United States. General federal statutes (like the Declaratory Judgment Act) do not suffice.
• FTCA Exhaustion Requirement: Before suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claimant must first present his claim to the relevant federal agency and wait for a final denial.
• Rule 41(g): Allows parties to move for the return of property seized by federal agents—but only in the district where the property was taken.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3664: Controls how and when restitution is ordered and adjusted in criminal cases; it does not create a standalone civil lawsuit mechanism.

Conclusion

Zane Balsam v. United States establishes that federal courts must dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, any non-FTCA civil claims against the United States challenging asset seizures beyond those expressly forfeited in a criminal judgment. The decision underscores the inviolability of sovereign immunity—only an unequivocal statutory waiver can permit such suits. For criminal defendants and practitioners, the ruling highlights the imperative of selecting the correct statutory vehicle (e.g., FTCA, Tucker Act, Rule 41(g)) and satisfying all procedural and jurisdictional prerequisites before seeking relief from the federal government.