Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01393/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01393-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tracey Allen McGhghy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1393

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Tracey Allen McGhghy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 3, 2005 

Filed: February 10, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In February 2002 Tracey Allen McGhghy (McGhghy) filed a Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 41(e) motion for the return of property. He alleged that his

personal property (including musical and recording equipment, sports card collection,

tools and chest, antiques, and books) was seized on November 22, 1996, when the

government executed a search warrant on his rental storage unit and then locked the

unit (containing the subject property) and draped yellow evidence tape across it; and

that the government had failed to inventory and appraise the property and give him

notice of the seizure. The government eventually responded that it never had

possession of the listed property, that a Jones County Sheriff said some property was

Appellate Case: 04-1393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2005 Entry ID: 1866008 
-2-

left in McGhghy’s storage unit after the search and seizure, and that the storage

facility owner said the remaining property was taken to a landfill after some time. 

The district court denied McGhghy’s Rule 41(e) motion, finding that he had

failed to submit any evidence that the government had seized or possessed the subject

property. McGhghy moved for reconsideration and requested an evidentiary hearing,

but the district court denied reconsideration. The court also denied McGhghy’s

motions for judgment on the pleadings, for entry of default, to strike, and for entry of

default judgment. On appeal McGhghy argues, inter alia, that the court erred in

denying his Rule 41(e) motion without granting him an evidentiary hearing. The

government responds that it never seized or possessed the property.

We conclude that the record is unclear as to what happened to McGhghy’s

property after the search of the storage unit, who has custody of the property, and

whether the property has been destroyed. Because there are unresolved factual issues,

and because Rule 41(e) generally requires the district court to conduct an evidentiary

hearing, we conclude remand for an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this case. See

Ball v. United States, 193 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (reversing and

remanding where court improperly denied motion for return of seized property

without receiving evidence to determine who had custody of property); United States

v. Burton, 167 F.3d 410, 410-11 (8th Cir. 1999) (same).

We affirm the district court’s denial of McGhghy’s other motions. See

Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of

judgment-on-pleadings ruling); Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 2001)

(abuse-of-discretion review of default-judgment ruling). 

Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand in part for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. We also deny as moot McGhghy’s motion to strike

portions of the government’s brief.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2005 Entry ID: 1866008