USA v. IBM Computer Tower et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 3 Motion for Writ; denying 4 Motion for Writ of Replevin. The court, will construe Searles two documents as an answer and claim and an amended answer and claim for purposes of this forfeiture action. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 01/22/2010. (kpf)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. IBM COMPUTER TOWER, et al., Case No. 2:09CV 897DAK Defendants. Judge Dale A. Kimball MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Interested Party Charles Lewis Searle's Motion for Writ of Replevin and Amended Motion for Writ of Replevin. Although the documents filed by Searle are only entitled "Writ of Replevin," they were docketed as motions. The government did not respond because it did not view the documents as motions. The court, however, ordered the government to respond to the documents, which it did on January 21, 2010. A writ of replevin is not available to a claimant to recover seized property in a civil forfeiture case. 18 U.S.C. § 981(c) specifically prohibits replevin as a remedy for property that has been seized: "Property taken or detained under this section shall not be repleviable." The proper method for recovering seized property is by filing an answer and claim in the civil forfeiture action. The court, therefore, denies Searle's motion and amended motion for a writ of replevin. The government, however, asserted that because Searle is proceeding pro se, it is willing to consider Searle's documents as answers and claims. The court, therefore, will construe Searle's two documents as an "answer and claim" and an "amended answer and claim" for purposes of this forfeiture action. DATED this 22d day of January, 2010. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge 2

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?