Opinion
4:20-cr-40045-JPG
06-20-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN A. WADSWORTH, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on a motion for return of property. (Doc. 84). Defendant Wadsworth expressly filed his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). He seeks the return of $3,807.00 in casino winnings that he claims was seized from his truck upon his arrest. The Government has responded to the motion stating that the $3,807.00 was administratively forfeited. (Doc. 87).
Rule 41(g) provides that “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return.” “[O]nce a defendant has been convicted, a motion under Rule 41(g) is deemed to initiate a civil equitable proceeding.” United States v. Shaaban, 602 F.3d 877, 878-79 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). Such a civil action is subject to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). Shaaban, 602 F.3d at 878-79; United States v. Stevens, 500 F.3d 625, 629 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, the Court must observe the PLRA's procedural requirements, including the imposition of a partial filing fee and merits review. The appropriate mechanism for doing this would be in a separate civil case where, if necessary, the criminal defendant could raise other civil theories of relief. See United States v. Norwood, 602 F.3d 830, 832 (7th Cir. 2010); Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1100 (7th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Wadsworth's Motion (Doc. 84) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to refile this motion as the complaint in a separate civil case. The complaint shall have a filing date of May 16, 2024. The Court will then proceed to assess the proper PLRA filing fee and conduct a preliminary review of the new case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & 1915(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.