United States of America v. Chandler
Filing
2
ORDER Denying 1 Motion for Return of Property and Closing Case - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)
Case 2:20-mc-50816-NGE-EAS ECF No. 2 filed 07/31/20
PageID.6
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
No. 20-mc-50816
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
THEODORE CHANDLER,
Defendant-Petitioner.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY [1] AND CLOSING CASE
On November 8, 2016, Defendant Theodore Chandler pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (Count 1) and
conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count
2). (Case no. 15-20246, dkt. 121.) On June 14, 2018, the Court sentenced Defendant
to a term of imprisonment of 235 months on Counts 1 and 2, to run concurrently. (Id.
at dkt. 206.) The Sixth Circuit affirmed on direct appeal and issued its mandate on
April 4, 2019. (Id. at dkts. 212, 214.) On July 2, 2020, Defendant filed a pro se motion
for the return of his property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).
(Dkt. 1.) Defendant seeks the return of four iPads, four iPhones, and “any and all
items not contraband” allegedly seized by the government. The Clerk’s office opened
the above-captioned miscellaneous case and docketed Defendant’s motion within this
case.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), “[a] person aggrieved by an
unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for
Case 2:20-mc-50816-NGE-EAS ECF No. 2 filed 07/31/20
PageID.7
Page 2 of 2
the property’s return.” However, this rule only applies if a criminal case is pending. As
Defendant acknowledges, after a criminal conviction, a motion under Rule 41(g) is
treated as a civil action in equity. See Stiger v. United States, 100 F. App’x 370, 37172 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Dusenbery, 201 F.3d 763, 768 (6th Cir.
2000); United States v. Duncan, 918 F.2d 647, 654 (6th Cir. 1990)). Here, criminal
proceedings are no longer pending and Defendant did not file a civil action. Thus, the
Court will deny Defendant’s motion without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate civil
action. See United States v. Savage, 99 F. App’x 583, 584 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding the
district court did not err when it denied a Rule 41(g) motion filed after judgment was
entered and instructed the movant to file a separate civil action); see also In re Khalid
Bin Al-Saud, No. 12-mc-50076, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173058, at *2-3 (E.D. Mich.
Dec. 6, 2012).
In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for the return of property is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this miscellaneous case is CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: July 31, 2020
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 31, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?