Cuney v. United States of Amercia, No. 4:2022cv07443 - Document 15 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY re: 1 5 , Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore. (wft, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN CUNEY, Plaintiff, 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA, Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 5 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY v. 9 10 Case No. 22-cv-07443-KAW 12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff seeks return of property seized in Redway, California in connection with a 15 criminal proceeding leading to his guilty plea in the Northern District of New York. Because 16 Plaintiff already sought return of this property in the Northern District of New York, where his 17 motion was denied without prejudice to renewing it after exhausting his appellate rights, this Court 18 will not exercise equitable jurisdiction and the motion will be denied. DISCUSSION 19 20 A. 21 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner. He pleaded guilty in the Northern District of New York on 22 June 22, 2021 to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 23 §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and one count of possession of unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 24 U.S.C. § 5861(d). See United States v. Cuney, No. 19-cr-00420-FJS at ECF 32 (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 15, 25 2021) (“NDNY Docket”). He was sentenced to 87 months for each count, to run concurrently, on 26 December 3, 2021. Id. at ECF 46. Plaintiff wrote a letter to the sentencing judge in the Northern 27 District of New York asking for the return of his property including “documents, electronics, my 28 US Passport and identity documents, still, and misc. other items.” Id. at ECF 53. The government Background 1 construed the letter as a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property and opposed it on November 16, 2 2022. Id. at ECF 54. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Northern District of New York on 3 December 15, 2021. Id. at ECF 48. 4 The district court denied plaintiff’s Rule 41(g) motion on December 22, 2022 without 5 prejudice to plaintiff renewing it after exhausting his appellate rights, finding that he failed to 6 demonstrate that the government would not need the items should he be successful in his appeal. 7 Id. at ECF 56. The court also noted that it did not know where the items plaintiff sought returned 8 were seized, but that the according to the government, it had possession of them in New York, 9 California, and Arizona. Id. at ECF 56 at 3 n.2. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff filed the instant Rule 41(g) motion and action on November 23, 2022, and again 11 on December 12 after the Clerk of the Court sent him a deficiency notice. ECF 1, 5. He stated 12 that, after his arrest in Arizona, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) 13 executed a search warrant at a storage facility in Redway, California and removed “documents, 14 papers, electronics, drones, tools, camping accessories, military surplus, a law enforcement 15 memorabilia collection, and movants United States Passport.” ECF 5 at 1. After conversations 16 between his attorney and an Assistant United States Attorney named Michael Barnett, a portion of 17 his property was returned to plaintiff’s father in February 2022. Id. After further attempts to 18 recover more of his property were unsuccessful, he filed this case and requested that “his personal 19 property being unlawfully held by [ATF] in the Northern District of California be returned to him” 20 and sent to his father. Id. The Court issued an order to show cause. ECF 10. The government 21 argued that the motion should be denied for failing to specifically identify the property to be 22 returned, failing to show that the property was not contraband, and failing to show that the 23 government did not still need it since plaintiff’s criminal appeals were still pending. ECF 13. The 24 government attached a list of “the items seized during the Redway, California search, filed in the 25 N.D.N.Y. action as Dkt. 54-2.” Id. at 9. 26 In response, plaintiff identifies the following as the property he seeks: “all remaining 27 property from the government with the exception of firearms, ammunition, or any firearms related 28 objects” consisting of “(i) Two Sets of AN-PVS-14b Night Vision Monoculars; (ii) United States 2 1 Passport belonging to the plaintiff; (iii) Birth Certificate and Social Security Card belonging to the 2 plaintiff; (iv) papers, documents, and personal effects; (v) the plaintiff’s Iraq war memorabilia 3 collection from his time in the service; (vi) clothing, jewelry, tools and other miscellaneous 4 items.” ECF 14 at 5. 5 6 was shipped to him in California and stored in his storage locker, for which the government 7 included receipts in the warrant affidavits, which is unaccounted for and not listed in the seized 8 assets. He “believes agents of the government stole this [property] for personal use as prior to 9 their entrance into the unit it was there and upon their exit it was not.” ECF 14 at 4. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff alleges that there is approximately $10,000 worth of night vision equipment that Plaintiff argues that the government referred to “hand grenades” in its briefing to prejudice 11 the Court although there were no hand grenades recovered from his storage locker, and 12 erroneously identified two items as “machine guns” that were approximately twenty-dollar toys. 13 ECF 14 at 2-3. 14 He also argues that the search warrant for the storage locker was unlawful because it listed 15 items that had already been found elsewhere prior to its execution, that the gun parts that he 16 acquired were not unlawful because they did not constitute firearms, and that any firearms he built 17 with them were not part of interstate commerce. ECF 14 at 3-4. 18 The government argues that plaintiff is seeking a second bite at the apple after his New 19 York motion was denied, to which plaintiff responds that he had already received all eligible 20 property from New York and filed this motion to obtain property that was seized in the Northern 21 District of California. 22 Plaintiff contends his property is being withheld as punishment for his filing a complaint 23 with the Office of the Inspector General and a separate civil suit against ATF alleging violations of 24 his Fourth Amendment rights. ECF 14 at 1. 25 B. 26 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides: 27 28 Legal Standard A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings. The Rule defines “property” to include “documents, books, papers, any other tangible objects, and information.” Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 41(a)(2)(A). If a Rule 41(g) motion is made before an indictment is filed, but during a criminal investigation, “the movant bears the burden of proving both that the [property’s] seizure was illegal and that he or she is entitled to lawful possession of the property.” United States v. Gladding, 775 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987)). “But that burden of proof changes when ‘the property in question is no longer needed for evidentiary purposes, either because trial is 10 complete, the defendant has pleaded guilty, or ... the government has abandoned its United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 investigation.’” Id. At that time, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that it “has a legitimate reason to retain the property.” Id. “[A] defendant’s Rule 41(g) motion should presumptively be granted if the government ‘no longer needs the property for evidence.’” United 14 States v. Kriesel, 720 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 15 387, 388 (9th Cir. 1996)). The government can carry its burden by demonstrating that the 16 17 property “is contraband or subject to forfeiture.” Gladding, 775 F.3d at 1152 (quoting Martinson, 809 F.2d at 1369). Any other “legitimate reason” the government has for retaining the property 18 will also suffice. Id. 19 20 21 22 A Rule 41(g) motion, “when there are no criminal proceedings pending against the movant,” is “treated as [a] civil equitable proceeding[] and, therefore, a district court must exercise ‘caution and restraint’ before assuming jurisdiction.” Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Kitty’s East v. United States, 905 F.2d 1367, 1370 (10th Cir. 1990)); see 23 also Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1987). 24 Where a court considers evidence outside of the pleadings in evaluating an opposition to a 25 Rule 41(g) motion, it should apply the standard for converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for 26 summary judgment and should give the nonmoving party a chance to respond. United States v. 27 Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). 28 4 1 C. Analysis First, the Court notes that the legality of the searches preceding plaintiff’s guilty plea is not 2 at issue for purposes of the Rule 41(g) motion. See Martinson, 809 F.2d at 1369. Because 3 plaintiff has already pleaded guilty, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that it has a 4 legitimate reason to continue to possess the property, and plaintiff no longer bears the burden of 5 demonstrating the illegality of the seizure. Therefore, whether the warrant contained 6 misinformation is immaterial. 7 8 9 The government’s stated reason for keeping plaintiff’s non-contraband property is that his direct appeal is pending; should his conviction be reversed, it would “put the government back on a trial footing.” ECF 13 at 5. While the Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed whether a 10 pending direct appeal is a sufficient basis for the government to retain property, other circuits have 11 United States District Court Northern District of California found that it is. See, e.g., United States v. Saunders, 957 F.2d 1488, 1494-1495 (8th Cir. 1992) 12 13 14 (defendant’s motion for “return of paperwork, even papers that were not introduced at trial, was premature because defendant’s direct appeal was still pending”); United States v. Uribe-Londono, 177 F. App’x 89, 90 (1st Cir. 2006) (seeing no error in district court’s ruling that requests for 15 return of property were premature while appeal was pending); United States v. Dahda, No. 2016 3185, 2021 WL 4891650, at *3 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2021) (movant had the burden to demonstrate 17 his entitlement to the property because his appeal was pending). 18 More importantly, this court will not exercise equitable jurisdiction because plaintiff has 19 already brought this motion in another federal district court. Although he states in his reply that 20 he sought the return of different property in each jurisdiction according to where it was seized, his 21 22 23 motion in the Northern District of New York sought “property taken during the execution of search warrants”—in the plural—including “documents, electronics, my US Passport and identity documents, still, and misc. other items,” NDNY Docket at ECF 53 at 1, which plainly overlaps 24 with the property he seeks in this Court. Because plaintiff may raise his motion again in the 25 N.D.N.Y. case after he exhausts his appellate rights, he has an adequate remedy other than this 26 court’s exercise of equitable jurisdiction. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 27 1993). Principles of comity, judicial economy, and uniformity lead this Court to refrain from 28 5 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 exercising equitable jurisdiction. Plaintiff also argues that venue is only appropriate in this district for the property that was 3 seized here, but the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on whether the venue provision contained within 4 the text of Rule 41(g) applies to post-conviction motions. The Second, Eighth, and Third Circuits 5 have found venue for a post-conviction motion for return of property appropriate in the district 6 where the trial or criminal proceeding took place. See United States v. Giovanelli, 998 F.2d 116, 7 118 (2d Cir. 1993); Thompson v. Covington, 47 F.3d 974, 975 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. 8 Parlavecchio, 57 F. App’x 917, 920 (3d Cir. 2003). The Fourth Circuit has held that venue for a 9 post-conviction motion for return of property can only lie in the district of seizure. United States 10 v. Garcia, 65 F.3d 17, 21 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Plaintiff filed his first motion for return of 11 property in a district court within the Second Circuit, that district court has jurisdiction, according 12 to circuit precedent, over all the property, including the property seized in California. If the court 13 were to find otherwise in a renewed motion after Plaintiff exhausts his appellate rights, the court 14 could transfer the case to this district, or Plaintiff may refile his motion in this district at that time. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons identified above, Plaintiff’s motion for return of property pursuant to 17 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) is DENIED. The clerk shall terminate all pending 18 motions, enter judgment in favor of Defendant, and close the file. 19 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 1 and 5. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 27, 2023 22 23 KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
