UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES PETER SABATINO

Holding: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a Rule forty-one motion because the motion was filed in the wrong district, as the rule requires filing in the district where the property was seized.
Standard: Plain text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure forty-one
Vote: Per curiam decision affirming the district court's denial of the motion.
Practical effect: Prisoners and their counsel must file motions for the return of seized property in the specific federal district where the seizure physically occurred, regardless of where the underlying criminal case was tried or where the ordering official is located.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion for the return of property filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure forty-one. The court held that the motion must be brought in the district where the property was seized, not where the seizure was ordered or where the defendant was tried.

Background

James Sabatino, a federal prisoner serving a sentence at ADX Florence in Colorado, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure forty-one seeking the return of two hard drives seized by the Bureau of Prisons. Although the property was seized in Colorado, Sabatino filed his motion in the Southern District of Florida, where his federal criminal case was adjudicated. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the correct forum was the District of Colorado based on the plain text of the rule.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the plain text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure forty-one, which mandates that a motion for the return of property be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court rejected arguments that venue was proper in Florida because the seizure was ordered by an Assistant United States Attorney in that district or because the property was later located there. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion rather than transferring it, as the defendant never requested a transfer and the court is not required to do so sua sponte.

What it means going forward

Prisoners and their counsel must file motions for the return of seized property in the specific federal district where the seizure physically occurred, regardless of where the underlying criminal case was tried or where the ordering official is located.