Opinion
89 CR 908-2.
December 20, 2004
On January 28, 2002, Thomas Bates, whose criminal convictions stem from his participation in the El Rukn street gang, filed a motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) for return of property. The property he sought was the building located at 3947 S. Drexel, in Chicago, a theater that the El Rukns had converted into their headquarters, and which they called "the Fort." A judicial forfeiture order in December 1989 resulted in title to the property being turned over to the City of Chicago, which leveled the building in 1990. The Rule 41 motion was assigned to Judge Leinenweber and docketed as civil case number 02 C 686. On February 12, 2004, Judge Leinenweber denied the motion as untimely and entered judgment against Bates: the motion was filed long after the six-year statute of limitations had expired. See United States v. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 708-709 (7th Cir. 2004). Bates did not appeal but instead filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied on September 2, 2004.
On September 10, 2004, Bates filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment using the criminal case number rather than the civil case number given to the matter before Judge Leinenweber that motion was assigned to me. In his motion, Bates argues that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3287, suspended the statute of limitations for the time during which the government was fighting "the war on drugs."
It is patently obvious from the language of § 3287 that it does not apply to any suits by private citizens seeking return of judicially forfeited property. It was enacted for quite the opposite purpose of excusing the government, not the government's opponent, from promptly prosecuting offenses during times of war. Since this case is so easily decided, I see no reason to refer it to Judge Leinenweber. Such a reference would in all likelihood be more trouble than it's worth.
Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED.