Webster v. US Attorney et al

Filing 32

OPINION AND ORDER denying 28 Motion for Fraud and denying 29 Giving Notice for Record of 3rd Party Interest in the Outcome of and Proceeds From Suit Settlement &/or Award. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/27/17. (cc: Plaintiff). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TOMMY WEBSTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U.S. ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-554-PPS-CAN
)
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
Tommy Webster, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion asking me to reopen this case
because Judge Miller might modify an order I relied on when I dismissed this case.
Then again, he might not. The possibility that order could be modified is not a basis for
reopening this case. Moreover, even if Judge Miller modifies his order, there would be
no basis for reopening this case.
In the amended complaint, Webster sought compensation for a number of items
seized by the South Bend Police Department from his home pursuant to a warrant
issued by the St. Joseph Superior Court in March 2011. In connection with events
related to the seizure of the property at issue here, Webster was charged and convicted
of federal crimes. See United States v. Webster, 3:11-CR-67 (N.D. Ind. filed May 12, 2011).
In that criminal proceeding, Webster also litigated his claims about these items. Motion
to Reopen & For Review & Mandamus Regarding Records Inaccuracies Based Property
Divestiture & for Other Necessary and Warranted Relief, United States v. Webster, 3:11CR-67 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 2, 2015), ECF No. 126. Two of the defendants to this action are

federal officials who Judge Miller, presiding over the criminal proceeding, ruled never
had possession of the seized property and, as such, I dismissed them from this case.
[DE 10.] Specifically, Judge Miller ruled that “the federal government doesn’t have
possession of the items Mr. Webster seeks.” Order, United States v. Webster, 3:11-CR-67
(N.D. Ind. Nov. 30, 2015), ECF No. 130.
Since then, the United States Attorney has conceded to having three items that
were admitted during Webster’s criminal trial and that can be returned if Judge Miller
modifies his order. So if Judge Miller agrees, Webster will get those three items back. If
Judge Miller’s original order had said exactly what the anticipated modified order is
expected to say, this case would have still been dismissed. Thus, there is no reason to
reopen this case. Webster will either win or lose based on the proceedings in his
criminal case. As I explained in my order dismissing this case, Webster can challenge
that ruling in his criminal case, but he cannot re-litigate it in this one. [DE 10 at 2-3.]
Finally, Webster also filed a motion indicating that he has agreed to donate a
portion of his recovery to charity. [DE 29.] If Webster wants to give something to
charity, he can do so. No motion is necessary.
For these reasons, Webster’s motions [DE 28 and 29] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 27, 2017
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2