Court Opinion

ID: 2964260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:56.137448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:49.975469
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 6, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1037

                                  HELEN FORMANCZYK,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr, and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Helen Formanczyk on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Dina   Michael
            _________________                                   ______________
        Chaitowitz, Assistant  United States  Attorney, on Motion  for Summary
        __________
        Disposition for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Pro se appellant  Helen Formanczyk appeals
                 __________    ___ __

            the denial by the district court of her motion for the return

            of  property seized  by  the United  States  Government.   We

            vacate the denial and remand for further proceedings.

                 Formanczyk styled her motion as  one pursuant to Fed. R.

            Crim. P. 41(e).   However, since criminal proceedings against

            her  have  been completed,  the  district  court should  have

            construed  her  motion  as  a  civil  action  for  return  of

            property, pursuant to  28 U.S.C.    1331.   United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Giraldo, 45 F.3d  509, 511  (1st Cir.  1995) (citing  cases).
            _______

            Moreover, inasmuch as the property seized is no longer needed

            for  evidentiary   purposes,  "[t]he  person  from  whom  the

            property [has been] seized is presumed to have a right to its

            return, and  the government  has the burden  of demonstrating

            that  it has  a  legitimate reason  to retain  the property."

            United States  v. Martinson,  809 F.2d  1364, 1369 (9th  Cir.
            _____________     _________

            1987)  (citing  cases)  (footnotes  omitted).    Although the

            government  now alleges  that  the property  in question  was

            forfeited in an administrative  proceeding, the instant  case

            was dismissed  before the district court  received a response

            from  the  government.     Consequently,  as  the  government

            concedes,  there  is no  evidence  of the  forfeiture  in the

            record.  In such  circumstances the dismissal of Formanczyk's

            claim was premature.

                 Vacated and remanded.
                 _______     ________

                                         -2-