Opinion ID: 2771819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1994–2002 Seizures

Text: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides: “A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” A Rule 41(g) motion has a six-year statute of limitations. United States v. Wright, 361 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). “[W]here no forfeiture proceedings were conducted, a claim accrues at the end of the ‘limitations period during which the government is permitted to bring a forfeiture action . . . .’” Bailey v. United States, 508 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Polanco v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 158 F.3d 647, 654 (2d Cir. 1998)). Forfeiture proceedings of drug proceeds under customs laws must be commenced within five years after the time when the alleged offense was discovered. 21 U.S.C. § 881(d); 19 U.S.C. § 1621. The Government argues that Landry’s motion to recover his property seized between 1994 and 2002 is barred by the statute of limitations. 4 In addition, the Government notes that Landry has provided no evidence that the United States effectuated these seizures. There is no evidence of these seizures in the record; Landry merely asserts that they are listed in his PSR. Even assuming the United States seized the property and never commenced forfeiture proceedings, Landry’s claim to these funds fails. The sixyear statute of limitations commences when the five-year period for the government to commence forfeiture proceedings expires. 5 For his challenge to 4 Reading his brief in the most charitable light, Landry seems to argue that equitable tolling applies to his case. However, “[g]enerally a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way,” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Landry has not established either element; he simply reiterates his argument that notice was insufficient. 5 This is because the six-year statute of limitations for the Rule 41(g) action would run from the expiration of the five-year statute of limitation of the Government’s forfeiture action, see 21 U.S.C. § 881(d); 19 U.S.C. § 1621; Bailey 508 F.3d at 740. 4 Case: 14-50782 Document: 00512909633 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 No. 14-50782 be timely, therefore, Landry would have had to file his motion within eleven years of the date of the seizure. As noted above, Landry filed this action on September 27, 2013. Landry is therefore statutorily barred from seeking to recover money seized from him prior to September 27, 2002. Because the latest alleged seizure in this group occurred on January 1, 2002, Landry’s claims are time-barred.