Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01784/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01784-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiff filed pursuant to Fed. Rule Cr. P. 41(e), but upon review the court determined

1

that he intended to filed pursuant to Rule 41(g), which provides for a motion to return property. 

See F.Rule Cr. P. 41(g). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Peter T. Harrell,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1784 DFL CMK

vs.

Mark Montgomery, Jr., et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Instead of

filing a complaint in this action, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Return of Property Pursuant to

Federal Rules of Crim. Procedure 41(g).” 

1

In his motion, plaintiff states that his computer and various writings were seized

by the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department. A case was brought against plaintiff in Siskiyou

County Superior Court. After a May 11, 2005 hearing, the Deputy District Attorney asked the

Sheriff’s Department to contact the FBI to determine if an indictment date had been set. (Pl.’s

Mot., Ex. C.) The District Attorney communicated to the Sheriff’s Department that the Superior

Case 2:05-cv-01784-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Court Judge was “not pleased with the method used for the transfer of the property and

evidence.” (Id.) On May 23, 2005, Special Agent Montgomery served the Sheriff’s Department

with a federal subpoena ordering the property and evidence in plaintiff’s case be released to the

FBI. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that his property is still in federal custody and that no federal

indictment has been brought against him.

The United States subsequently filed criminal charges against plaintiff relating to

the substance of this matter. On January 18, 2006, the court issued a related case order in this

matter. (Doc. 11.) As a result of the criminal proceedings brought against plaintiff, his motion

for a return of property is moot. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Motion

for Return of Property (doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01784-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2