Opinion
No. 3:13-cr-9-PLR-CCS
10-19-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROCKY JOE HOUSTON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Rocky Houston's pro se motion for a return of his property. [D. 270]. He argues that federal agents, in executing a search warrant on his property, went outside the bounds of that warrant and seized several pictures he had displayed in his yard.
The Court will treat this as a motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). Such motions are treated as civil actions in equity. United States v. Duncan, 918 F.2d 647, 654 (6th Cir. 1990). As a result, Houston must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government has his property and that he is entitled to have it back. See, e.g., CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 444 (2011).
Houston has failed to meet this burden. The most compelling evidence he offers is a transcript excerpt from his sentencing hearing. During that hearing, Jason Mynatt, a Roane County Sheriff's Deputy, testified that he had retrieved "from the crime scene photos from the TBI file the actual pictures" at issue here. [D. 258 at 32:1-4]. If anything, this testimony shows that the TBI—a state agency—once had the photos, and then they were taken by Deputy Mynatt, a local police officer. In other words, Houston offers no evidence that the federal government has the photographs. He has thus failed to show possession of property by the federal government. See United States v. Oguaju, 76 F. App'x 579, 581 (6th Cir. 2003). Houston's motion for a return of property is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE