Jovica Petrovic v. United States, No. 17-3505 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. In this action raising a claim under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for return of seized property, the matter is remanded with directions to address Petrovic's Rule 41(g) claim regarding property still in the government's possession. [ June 06, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3505 ___________________________ Jovica Petrovic lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 28, 2018 Filed: June 7, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In 2015, we remanded to the District Court Jovica Petrovic’s claim under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for return of seized property. Once again, he is appealing the denial of his motion. And once again, we remand for further proceedings. Initially, we construe the District Court’s October 2016 opinion, memorandum, and order as converting Petrovic’s Rule 41(g) motion into an action for damages only to the extent Petrovic sought return of property that was no longer in the government’s possession, thus effectively creating two separate actions: an action for damages regarding the property no longer in the government’s possession and a Rule 41(g) action regarding the property the government still possesses. See United States v. Bailey, 700 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that when a court determines that the government no longer possesses property sought to be returned through a Rule 41 motion, the court should allow the movant to convert the motion into an action for damages). We conclude that it was improper for the District Court to deny relief based on the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion in resolving Petrovic’s Rule 41(g) motion. See In re Anderberg-Lund Printing Co., 109 F.3d 1343, 1346 (8th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he party against whom res judicata is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect.”). We remand the case with instructions to address Petrovic’s Rule 41(g) claim regarding the property still in the government’s possession.1 ______________________________ 1 Petrovic’s converted action for damages remains pending in the District Court. See Schweiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 922 F.2d 473, 476 (8th Cir. 1990) (explaining why it may be preferable to have a district court address an issue in the first instance). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
