class definition based on census tract information rather than zip codes. At the outset, we note that these arguments rely upon differences in procedural rules. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 (classifying joinder as a federal procedural rule), 26(c) (authorizing a district court, as a matter of procedure, to create orders limiting discovery). However, because federal subject matter jurisdiction attaches pursuant to the All Writs Act, procedural matters in this case, as well as any future case im pacting the prior judgment in Canady I, are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c) (authorizing application of the Federal Rules to state court actions removed to federal court); see also Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 134-35, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Hiatt v. Mazda Motor Corp., 75 F.3d 1252,
holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that the expansive language of rule 81c indicates a clear intent to have the federal rules  apply to all district court civil proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies