900 F.3d 1234
10th Cir.2018Background
- In March 2014 Utah state authorities seized various items from Michael Bacon during his arrest, including clothing, a fake mustache and wig, wallets, keys and title to a van, a bank robbery demand note, and a small container testing positive for meth.
- In November 2014 a federal grand jury indicted Bacon on bank-robbery counts; federal authorities asked the state to hold the seized property as evidence for the federal case (constructive federal possession; state retained physical custody).
- Bacon pleaded guilty in state court in April 2015; some items (a wallet, van keys/title) were allegedly released to his ex-wife by state officials around that time.
- Bacon pleaded guilty in federal court in June 2015; the district court stated it would "release whatever federal hold there is" after the appeal period expired. After the appeal period, some property was returned but Bacon claimed many items were missing.
- In February 2016 Bacon filed a Rule 41(g) motion in federal court seeking return, an itemization, and monetary damages for missing property. The district court denied relief, finding Bacon had adequate remedies at law (state causes of action and a pending § 1983 suit) and that it lacked jurisdiction to award money damages.
- Bacon appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and equitable decisions for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial based on the adequacy-of-remedy ground.
Issues
| Issue | Bacon's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the equitable "inadequate remedy at law" test for Rule 41(g) applies post-conviction | Cites Third Circuit/ Clymore II: after proceedings end, burden shifts and post-conviction movants presumptively entitled; therefore the inadequate-remedy test should not apply | Rule 41(g) is an equitable remedy both pre- and post-conviction; equitable courts require showing of inadequate legal remedy and irreparable harm | Test applies post-conviction; district court properly applied inadequate-remedy standard |
| Whether Bacon had an adequate remedy at law (state remedies or § 1983) | State and federal remedies may be inadequate; § 1983 uncertain; state remedies differ from federal return motions | Utah statutes and constitutional provisions (and prior Tenth Circuit authority) provide adequate remedies to seek return or compensation for property held by state officials | District court did not abuse discretion: Bacon has adequate remedies under state law (affirmed); court did not address § 1983 alternative ground |
| Whether the appellate court should remand because the district court did not resolve disputed factual issues or hold an evidentiary hearing required by Rule 41(g) | Rule 41(g) requires receiving evidence on factual issues (ownership, what items missing, contraband status); district court erred by deciding without resolving facts | The factual disputes were not necessary to decide whether equitable jurisdiction should be exercised because the inadequate-remedy threshold resolved the motion | No remand: evidentiary hearing not required on facts unnecessary to the jurisdictional/equitable question |
Key Cases Cited
- Clymore v. United States, 164 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 1999) (recognizing limited use of Rule 41(g) for state-seized property in constructive federal possession)
- United States v. Shigemura, 664 F.3d 310 (10th Cir. 2011) (Rule 41(g) relief is equitable; require inadequate legal remedy and irreparable harm)
- United States v. Clymore, 245 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2001) (discussing burden-shifting post-conviction in context of seized-property claims)
- United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999) (post-conviction presumption favoring return and burden shift to government)
- Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999 (10th Cir. 1988) (Rule 41(g) equitable relief should be declined if adequate legal remedies exist)
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) (equity should not act when adequate legal remedies exist)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (equity jurisdiction requires inadequate legal remedy and potential irreparable injury)
- In re 6455 S. Yosemite, Englewood, Co., 897 F.2d 1549 (10th Cir. 1990) (equitable issues usually addressed first in district court)
- Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., 458 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2006) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record if parties had fair opportunity to address it)
- Pinder v. Mitchell, [citation="658 F. App'x 451"] (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished but cited for the proposition that Utah statutory remedies for return of evidence are adequate)