Hoskins v. United States

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 10/24/2016. Mailed to Hoskins. (TAG, )

FILED
Cle~. l! S District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Cause No. CR 04-035-M-DWM
CV 16-121-M-DWM

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER DENYING
RULE 59 MOTION

SHANE DOUGLAS HOSKINS,
Defendant.

Criminal judgment was entered against Defendant Hoskins on March 14,
2005. On September 8, 2016, Hoskins moved the Court to order the United States
to return property to him under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g). On September 16, 2016,
the Court recharacterized the motion as a civil complaint and required Hoskins to
show cause why it should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. Hoskins
was also required to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. He responded on October 3, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the complaint
was dismissed, the filing fee was assessed, and the Court certified that any appeal
would be taken in bad faith.

1

On October 17, 2016, Hoskins moved the Court to alter or amend the
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). He states the Court could have simply
denied his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g). But, first, Hoskins himself
pointed out that his motion should be "treated as a civil complaint" because "there
are no criminal proceedings pending against the defendant." Mot./Compl. to
Return Property (CR 04-35-M Doc. 420, CV 16-121-M Doc. 2) at 1 (citing cases).
Recharacterization of the pleading, therefore, came as no surprise to him. Second,
although the Court is not aware of any requirement to notify and warn prisoners of
the existence of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 before dismissing a complaint or assessing a
strike under § l 915(g), Hoskins was actually notified of what the Court intended to
do. See Order to Show Cause (CR 04-35-M Doc. 421, CV 16-121-M Doc. 1). He
could have withdrawn the pleading if he wished to avoid the consequences he now
seeks to elude. Finally, Hoskins' own exhibits show that he was notified of the
seizure of the items in question in 2004, see id. Exs. A, B; Superseding Indictment
(CR 04-35-M Doc. 18), and was asked, on January 13, 2006, what he wanted done
with them. Mot./CompI. Ex. C. Even so, not until September 2016 did Hoskins
seek their return "or ... monetary relief for loss of or negligent disposition of
property if not available." Id. at 4.
The pleading Hoskins filed was frivolous and failed to state a claim. There
can be no harm nor foul in saying so.
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hoskins' Rule 59 motion (CR
04-35-M Doc. 425, CV 16-121-M Doc. 7) is DENIED.
DATED this

l!f_~ay of October, 2016.

3