Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-mj-00521/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-mj-00521-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeremiah Isaac Pedersoli
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jeremiah Isaac Pedersoli,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

05-00521M (JCG)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On July 19, 2005, the government filed a Complaint charging Defendant with theft

or receipt of stolen mail matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. Defendant was arrested on

this charge on September 27, 2005, and brought from the Pima County Adult Detention

Center where he was being detained, for his initial appearance on September 27, 2005. On

September 29, 2005, Defendant was ordered detained and waived preliminary hearing. On

November 22, 2005, Defendant moved to dismiss the charge with prejudice on the grounds

that the government had failed to obtain an indictment against Defendant within the time set

by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).

Prior to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant had requested a hearing to

enter a change of plea. That hearing was scheduled for December 13, 2005. On December

7, 2005, after receiving the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, this Court's staff called defense

counsel to clarify whether the Defendant wanted to proceed with the change of plea. Defense

counsel advised that the hearing could be either a change of plea or pursuit of the Motion to

Dismiss.

Case 4:05-mj-00521-HCE Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

2

At the December 13, 2005, hearing, the Defendant indicated he had elected not to

plead to an information and would pursue his Motion to Dismiss. The Assistant United

States Attorney (AUSA) explained that he had not filed a response to the Defendant's Motion

to Dismiss because he had extended a more lenient plea offer to the Defendant, and

anticipated, based on previous conversations with defense counsel, that the Defendant would

plead guilty to the information at the hearing. With respect to the merits of the Motion to

Dismiss, the AUSA candidly acknowledged that the government had failed timely to indict

the Defendant and explained that the case had inadvertently "fallen through the cracks." The

government conceded that dismissal was required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161, but argued

in favor of dismissal without prejudice. The parties further indicated that they believed a

magistrate had the authority to dismiss the case. The AUSA requested an opportunity to

provide supplemental briefing as to whether the dismissal should be with or without

prejudice. The Court ordered that supplemental authority could be provided to the Court by

fax by the close of business that day.

At a hearing on December 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge indicated that she would

be filing a report recommending dismissal of the charges without prejudice. Because both

parties agreed that the charges were appropriately dismissed, the Magistrate Judge ordered

that the Defendant be released from custody at that time.

Authority of Magistrate Judge

There is a question as to whether a magistrate judge is authorized to decide a motion

to dismiss a complaint alleging felony charges when the parties dispute whether the dismissal

should be with or without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 636 prohibits a magistrate judge from

dismissing or quashing an indictment or information made by the defendant. The Local

Rules for the District of Arizona prohibit a magistrate judge from dismissing indictments

unless the dismissal is on motion of the United States Attorney with the consent of the

defendants. LRCrim 57.6(d)(7). Here, the parties agree to dismissal of the complaint which

alleges felony charges, but dispute whether that dismissal should be with or without

prejudice. Because this dispute indicates a lack of consent as to the nature of the dismissal,

Case 4:05-mj-00521-HCE Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

3

this magistrate judge believes that she lacks authority to dismiss the charges and is

recommending to the District Court that the charges be dismissed without prejudice. See

United States v. Segal, 2002 WL 538775 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The basis for this recommendation

is set forth below. 

Failure to Timely Indict

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), "any information or indictment charging an

individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date

on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such

charges." (Emphasis added.) If the government fails to comply with the requirements of 18

U.S.C. § 3161(b), dismissal is required. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1). In determining whether the

dismissal should be with or without prejudice, a court must consider, among others, each of

the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case

which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this

chapter and on the administration of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1); United States v. Taylor,

487 U.S. 326, 332-341 (1988). 

In the present case, it is undisputed that Defendant was not indicted within thirty days

of his arrest. Thus, the charges against the Defendant must be dismissed. However, after

consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), the magistrate judge

recommends that the District Court dismiss the charges without prejudice.

As to the first factor, the Defendant's arrest for theft or receipt of stolen mail in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 is an offense serious enough to justify dismissal without

prejudice. The felony charge carries with it a mandatory/possible incarceration period of up

to five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000.

With respect to the second factor, there is no evidence to support a dismissal with

prejudice. It appears that the government failed to indict the Defendant within thirty days

due to mere inadvertence. There is no evidence that the government acted in bad faith, or

that the failure to timely indict is a part of a pattern of neglect or antipathy on the part of the

government. 

Case 4:05-mj-00521-HCE Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

4

The third factor also weighs in favor of a dismissal without prejudice. The longer the

delay, the greater the actual prejudice to the defendant. United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S.

326, 332-341 (1988). Fifty days have passed since the government's deadline to indict the

Defendant ended. While it is unfortunate that as a result of the government's negligence, the

Defendant has spent this additional time in custody, these additional fifty days do not amount

to such a restriction on Defendant's liberty as to justify dismissal with prejudice. It is

noteworthy that Defendant was serving a state sentence during this same time period and

would have been in state custody during part of this same time period. In addition, the

Defendant has not presented any evidence that his ability to prepare for trial has been

prejudiced by the delay. Given these facts, the purpose of deterring prosecutorial misconduct

and delay would not be served by barring reprosecution in this case. United States v. PenaCarrillo, 46 F.3d 879, 882-83 (9th Cir. 1995).

Based upon the foregoing, it is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the

District Court, after its independent review, grant in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. No. 8) and dismiss the charges against Defendant without prejudice. 

The parties have ten days to file their written objections to this report. The objections

should be filed with the Honorable John M. Roll.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2005.

Case 4:05-mj-00521-HCE Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 4