United States District Court Southern District of New York
August 1, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JUAN CARLOS HERRERA GOMEZ,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John G. Koeltl, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The defendant moves for the return of his property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). Because the criminal proceedings in the defendant's case have concluded, the defendant's motion will be treated as a civil complaint for equitable relief. See United States v. David, 131 F.3d 55, 61 (2d Cir. 1997); Rufu v. United States, 20 F.3d 63, 65 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The Court will treat the Government's response as an answer and a pre-discovery motion for summary judgment. The Government contends that most of the property sought by the defendant is subject to forfeiture. The issue is whether there are any factual disputes between the parties with respect to the property sought by the defendant. See David, 131 F.3d at 61. If the defendant disputes the Government's identification of the items seized at the time of his arrest or the Government's assertion as to which items are subject to forfeiture, the defendant should submit an opposition to the
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.