Irvin Berless Bartlett v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Irvin Berless Bartlett v. United States

317 F.2d 71, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5410

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1963

Docket18312_1

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 317 F.2d 71 (Irvin Berless Bartlett v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irvin Berless Bartlett v. United States, 317 F.2d 71, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5410 (9th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced on October-18, 1961, after a plea of guilty to a charge of violating Section 2314 of Title 18, United States Code.

Thereafter, appellant filed a mo-> tion for return of his money, under Rule 41(e), Fed.R.Crim.P. This is a method granted defendants to suppress evidence prior to trial. The owner of property subsequent to trial, may have a common law right, such as an action for replevin against law enforcement officers wrongfully seizing property, or claim under a libel action, United States v. Nirenberg, 19 F.R.D. 421 (E.D.N.Y.1956), but he has no right under Rule 41(e) after conviction. Cf. United States v. Casino, S.D.N.Y., 286 F. 976, 978; Point 5.

*72 Appellant mistakes the appellee’s position that the instant proceeding pursues the wrong remedy for an alleged position that no right to seek recovery exists. The burden is always on a plaintiff litigant to find the right court and the right remedy. Appellant has achieved neither here.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced on October-18, 1961, after a plea of guilty to a charge of violating Section 2314 of Title 18, United States Code.

Thereafter, appellant filed a mo-> tion for return of his money, under Rule 41(e), Fed.R.Crim.P. This is a method granted defendants to suppress evidence prior to trial. The owner of property subsequent to trial, may have a common law right, such as an action for replevin against law enforcement officers wrongfully seizing property, or claim under a libel action, United States v. Nirenberg, 19 F.R.D. 421 (E.D.N.Y.1956), but he has no right under Rule 41(e) after conviction. Cf. United States v. Casino, S.D.N.Y., 286 F. 976, 978; Point 5.

*72 Appellant mistakes the appellee’s position that the instant proceeding pursues the wrong remedy for an alleged position that no right to seek recovery exists. The burden is always on a plaintiff litigant to find the right court and the right remedy. Appellant has achieved neither here.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 71, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irvin-berless-bartlett-v-united-states-ca9-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack