[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                ____________________



       No. 96-1886


                            FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ-CLAUDIO,


                                Plaintiff, Appellant,


                                         v.


                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                Defendant, Appellee.


                                ____________________



                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


              [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, Senior U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                                Torruella, Chief Judge

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                             and Boudin, Circuit Judge.


                                ____________________


            Francisco Rodriguez-Claudio on brief pro se.

            Guillermo  Gil, United  States  Attorney,  Nelson Perez-Sosa  and

       Jacque line D. Novas, Assistant United States  Attorneys, on brief for

       appellee.



                                ____________________


                                    JUNE 6, 1997

                                ____________________








                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Francisco Rodriguez  Claudio


            appeals from the district court's dismissal of his  complaint


            for  the  return of  forfeited  property.    After  carefully


            reviewing 
                     the 
                         record 
                               and 
                                   the parties' briefs, we agree with the


            reasoning 
                     of 
                       the 
                           district court as set forth in its Opinion and


            Order, dated May 30, 1996.  We add the following comments.


                      1.   A 
                            collateral 
                                       attack 
                                             on 
                                                a 
                                                  forfeiture, such as the


            one at  hand,  "necessarily presents  a claim  for  equitable


            relief." 
                     
                     Uni
                        ted States v. Woodall, 12 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir.


            1993).  As such, a  court's decision to grant such relief  is


            governed 
                    by 
                      equitable 
                                principles.  See Linarez v. United States


            Dep't 
                 of 
                   Justice, 
                            2 
                              F.3d 
                                   208, 213 (7th Cir. 1993); 3 C. Wright,


            Federal Practice and Procedure  S 673, at 762 (2d ed.  1982).


            "Thus, 
                  the 
                      individual 
                                . 
                                  . . must show that he had an inadequate


            legal remedy and  that irreparable injury will result if  the


            court does not act."  Id.


                      Appellant received proper notice of the  forfeiture


            proceedings by  February 1993, prior  to having his  property


            actually  forfeited.  He  thus could have  filed a claim  and


            posted 
                  a 
                    bond, 
                         thereby 
                                 initiating judicial proceedings.  See 19


            U.S.C. S 1608;  21 C.F.R. S 1316.76(b).   By deciding not  to


            pursue  this  legal  remedy,  appellant  is  foreclosed  from


            obtaining 
                     equitable 
                              relief now.  That is, appellant cannot show


            that he had  an inadequate remedy at  law "for he could  have


            sought  recovery of  his  [property]  in  the  administrative




                                         -2-








            proceeding by raising the very same claims that he raised  in


            his complaint in the district court."  Linarez, 2 F.3d at 213


            (where  claimant received  actual  notice of  the  forfeiture


            proceedings which  explained how to file  a claim and post  a


            bond, but declined  to follow these procedures, he could  not


            pursue his constitutional claims in a collateral action).


                      2. 
                         
                         Because 
                                 appellant failed to present the question


            concerning 
                      excessive 
                               fines below, he has waived it.  See United


            States
                  
                  v. 
                     Pal
                        mer, 956 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1992).  We therefore


            decline to consider it.


                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
































                                         -3-