United States v. Hagar

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL HAGAR, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 24, 2023

1:16 CR 00273 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2023)

Opinion

1:16 CR 00273

04-24-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL HAGAR, Defendant.

DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge.

On March 22, 2023, Defendant Michael Hagar (“Hagar”) filed Defendant's Motion for Return of Property (ECF #165). On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff United States of America (“Government”) filed an objection and opposition to Hagar's motion (ECF #169).

On April 11, 2023, this Court, exercising the equitable authority given to it, as recognized in Henderson v. United States, 575 U.S. 622, 625-26 (2015), issued a Memorandum of Opinion and Order (ECF #170), followed by a separate one-page Order pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 58 (ECF #171), denying Hagar's motion. A copy of the Memorandum of Opinion and Order was mailed to Hagar the same day, April 11, 2023 (Notation accompanying ECF #170), and a copy of the one-page Order was mailed to Hagar the following day, April 12,2023 (Notation accompanying ECF #171).

In the Memorandum of Opinion and Order, this Court, after thoroughly reviewing the motion papers, as well as the trial and appellate record, found that “the danger presented to the community if Hagar's motion were to be granted is evident from the record,” (ECF #170, PagelD #1645), and that “Defendant Hagar fails any conceivable test under the ‘unclean hands doctrine' for an order directing the government to return any of the requested property, (ECF #170, PagelD #1652). The evidence supporting these findings is described throughout the Memorandum of Opinion and Order, (ECF #170), and particularly:

As noted in the record, (ECF #135 [Transcript of Sentencing Hearing], PagelD #1315), and as recognized and affirmed on appeal, United States v. Hagar, 822 Fed.Appx. 361, 373-74 (6^th Cir. 2020) (ECF #139 [Court Only], PagelD #1334,1343-46), Defendant Hagar's threatening offense conduct was “beyond the pale,” and did shock the moral sensibilities of this Court. His words and conduct demonstrated his intent to carry out his violent threats, and the firearm and other property seized from him showed that he had the firearms and ammunition to do it. The record further shows that the victims of Defendant Hagar's threats remain fearful of his eventual release from custody. Returning Hagar's firearms and ammunition to his father, who lives in the same city as Defendant Hagar, where Hagar can easily exercise constructive possession of them, will only heighten these victims' legitimate fears.

The doctrine of unclean hands easily warrants denial of Hagar's motion.

Here, where Hagar seeks return of the very property he possessed to make his threats real, his motion fails any test related to “unclean hands.”

Memorandum of Opinion and Order (ECF #170, PagelD #1650-1651) (citation and quotation from Bonner Farms, Ltd. v. Thomas A. Fritz, et al., 355 Fed.Appx. 10 (6^th Cir. 2009) omitted).

On April 20,2023, nine days after the Court's ruling, Defendant Hagar filed Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, (ECF #172), in an apparent effort to reargue his position. The Court finds that Defendant Hagar's untimely motion is moot, as the Court has already ruled on the motion, (ECF #170 & #171), denying it in its entirety.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF #172) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.