Pittman v. United States Department of Justice

Background

Randy Pittman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition seeking the return of property seized by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents during a December 15, 2020 search in Alabama. According to the petition, the seized items included laptops, cellular telephones, documents, baseball cards, media devices, and printers. Pittman alleged that he needed some of the items to comply with federal criminal probation and to defend himself in ongoing legal proceedings. The FBI provided him with a notice of seizure and initiation of administrative forfeiture proceedings, but the notice did not list all of the property he sought.

The court had granted Pittman permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and therefore screened the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, and that dismissal without allowing amendment is improper unless the defects clearly cannot be fixed.

Court’s analysis

The court analyzed Pittman’s request under 18 U.S.C. § 983(f), which allows a claimant to seek temporary release of property involved in civil forfeiture proceedings if statutory conditions are met. Before filing in court, a claimant must request possession from the appropriate official and explain how the statutory requirements are satisfied. If the official does not release the property within 15 days, the claimant may petition the district court where the forfeiture complaint was filed. If no forfeiture complaint was filed, the petition must be filed where the seizure warrant was issued or where the property was seized.

The court found that Pittman had not explained whether he made the required request to the appropriate official or filed a claim as instructed in the seizure notice. The court also said that this did not appear to be the proper forum. Pittman had not alleged that a forfeiture complaint was filed in the Northern District of California, and the court was not aware of one. The court stated that a petition concerning the property would appear to belong in the Northern District of Alabama if no forfeiture complaint had been filed, although it also directed Pittman to file in another district if a forfeiture complaint had been filed there.

The court separately observed that some of the property Pittman sought was not listed in the FBI’s notice and therefore did not appear to be part of forfeiture proceedings governed by § 983(f). For property seized under a warrant but not subject to forfeiture proceedings, the court said the likely procedure would be a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which generally concerns returning property after a search or seizure. But that motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized, so the court concluded that Pittman’s petition in the Northern District of California could not be treated as a Rule 41(g) motion.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Pittman to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. By May 20, 2021, Pittman had to file either an amended petition or complaint or a response explaining why the existing petition was sufficient. The order stated that failure to respond would lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to pursuing relief in an appropriate forum.

Judge Joseph C. Spero denied Pittman’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewing it if Pittman cured the identified defects and the court determined that the case should proceed.