Kee v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-01840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Kee v. United States, Judge Cote denied Kee’s motion as untimely and ordered judgment for the United States, dismissing the action.
Charles Michael Kee’s request for the return of seized property was denied, and the action was dismissed; the United States received judgment as the defendant.
What happened
In Kee v. United States, Charles Michael Kee asked the court for the third time to return property seized by the government, including a watch, cellphone, jewelry, and $2,000. He had made similar requests in 2001 and 2017; the 2001 request was denied, and he withdrew the 2017 request.
The court ruled that Kee’s request was filed too late. The court said his criminal case ended no later than October 7, 2002, giving him until October 7, 2008, to bring this type of action. Kee argued for an exception that would pause the deadline, but the court found that he had not shown continued effort to protect his rights or an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
Judge Denise Cote denied the motion as untimely. She directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the United States and dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- Kee v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-01840
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
Charles Michael Kee moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(g) for the return of property seized by the United States: a gold watch, a beeper, a lighter, a wallet containing an identification card and papers, a hat, jewelry, keys, a cellphone, and $2,000 in cash. The opinion states that this was Kee’s third request for the same relief. He sought return of the property in 2001 while his direct appeal was pending, and again in 2017. The court denied the 2001 request, and Kee withdrew the 2017 motion after the court required him either to pay filing fees or apply to proceed without paying them.
Kee filed the current petition on February 8, 2019, in his closed criminal case. The court treated it as a new civil action in equity and opened it under civil docket number 20cv1840 on February 28, 2020. Kee later submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The United States opposed the motion, arguing that it was untimely and stating that it did not waive the statute-of-limitations defense.
Limitations period
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), which generally bars a civil action against the United States unless it is filed within six years after the claim arises. For a request to return seized property filed after criminal proceedings end, the court explained that the six-year period begins when the criminal proceeding ends, if the claimant could have requested the property during that proceeding but did not do so and did not receive it.
The court found that Kee’s criminal proceeding ended, at the latest, on October 7, 2002, when the Supreme Court denied his petition for review. The deadline for filing this action was therefore, at the latest, October 7, 2008.
Equitable tolling
The court explained that untimeliness under this limitations rule can be subject to waiver or equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is a legal exception that can extend a filing deadline when the claimant shows both that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
The court found that Kee showed neither requirement. Although his July 21 submission appeared to request equitable tolling, he did not explain how he had diligently pursued his rights or why he waited to bring the claim. The court also noted that Kee knew about the claim as early as 2001 and had filed a substantially identical motion in 2017 before abandoning it. The court found no facts in the record excusing the delay.
Disposition
The court denied Kee’s February 28, 2020 motion for return of property as untimely. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the United States and dismiss the action. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.