United States v. Frank Clement , 584 F. App'x 460 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              AUG 04 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-55993
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:04-cv-06586-GHK-SS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    FRANK S. CLEMENT, AKA Frank
    Clement,
    Claimant - Appellant,
    And
    4820 HEAVEN AVENUE, WOODLAND
    HILLS, CALIFORNIA, the premises
    known as, and several other premises
    searched,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 22, 2014**
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Before:      GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Frank S. Clement, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his motion seeking return of his personal property.
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States
    v. Mills, 
    991 F.2d 609
    , 612 (9th Cir. 1993). We vacate and remand.
    Because no criminal proceedings were pending against Clement when he
    filed his motion, the district court improperly construed Clement’s motion as one
    for return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). See
    United States v. Ritchie, 
    342 F.3d 903
    , 906-07 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United
    States v. Ibrahim, 
    522 F.3d 1003
    , 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that where “there
    were no criminal proceedings pending at the time of filing, the district court
    properly treated the [Rule 41(g)] motion as a civil complaint”). Accordingly, we
    vacate and remand.
    On remand, the district court is free to consider Clement’s motion, as he
    requests, in the context of the district court’s March 2003 order, or as a civil
    complaint seeking equitable relief, see, e.g., 
    Ibrahim, 522 F.3d at 1007
    . We
    express no opinion as to the correct course of action.
    Appellee shall bear the costs on appeal.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                       12-55993
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-55993

Citation Numbers: 584 F. App'x 460

Judges: Callahan, Canby, Goodwin

Filed Date: 8/4/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023