USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-14585
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00089-MMH-PDB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JON CHRISTOPHER STOUNE,
a.k.a. Mycroft James Holmes,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 15, 2021)
Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 2 of 8
Jon Christopher Stoune, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for return of property. Stoune argues that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without addressing his
contention that the property at issue had been seized in violation of his constitutional
rights. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
In 2016, a jury convicted Stoune of attempting to entice a minor to engage in
sexual activity, advertising to receive and produce child pornography, and attempted
production of child pornography. He was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment.
At sentencing, the district court entered a forfeiture order encompassing a camera
and an iPhone that had been seized from Stoune on the day of his arrest. He did not
object to the forfeiture order. We affirmed his convictions and sentences. See
United States v. Stoune, 694 F. App’x 688 (11th Cir. 2017).
In May 2017, Stoune filed a pro se “Motion to compel government for return
of confiscated property,” seeking return of property that he contended had been
confiscated by the government during the investigation of his case. In response, the
government stated that it possessed various personal items belonging to Stoune and
that the remaining property in the case had been purged and destroyed by the St.
Johns County Sheriff’s Office (“SJCSO”).
2
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 3 of 8
The government subsequently filed a status report stating that Stoune’s
representative met with an FBI agent in December 2017 and took possession of the
property listed in its original response. Following this report, the district court
denied Stoune’s motion for return of property as moot.
In January 2018, Stoune filed a pro se “Motion to compel[] the production
and return of property or [proof] of destruction by the St. Johns County Sheriff’s
Department.” He asked the court to compel the SJCSO to return or provide proof of
destruction of his car, the contents of his car, and other property that was removed
from his home.
In response, the government submitted records from the SJCSO showing that
it had purged, destroyed, or forfeited the listed property, including Stoune’s
Volkswagen Passat. The records showed that, of thirty-seven items of evidence
recovered by the SJCSO, sixteen were released to the FBI, twenty were destroyed,
and the Volkswagen was forfeited.1 The sixteen items released to the FBI included
the camera, the iPhone, and other items seized from Stoune’s person upon his arrest,
as well as items seized from the Volkswagen following the execution of a search
warrant.
1
Records showed that Stoune’s then-wife received notice of the SJCSO’s forfeiture of the
car and did not contest it.
3
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 4 of 8
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) and
construed the motion as a motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g),
which is treated as a civil action in equity after the criminal proceedings have ended.
The magistrate judge grouped the property Stoune sought into five categories:
(1) evidence admitted at trial; (2) the Volkswagen; (3) the items that the SJCSO
transferred to the FBI that were not used as evidence at trial; (4) firearms; and
(5) everything else. The magistrate judge found that Stoune was not entitled to
return of items from the first category because he had unclean hands and the
government would need to retain the items in the event that Stoune’s then-pending
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate resulted in a new trial.2 The magistrate judge
then found that equitable relief against the government for the loss of the
Volkswagen was not warranted because the government never possessed it. Next,
the magistrate judge found that there was no issue with the third or fourth categories
because the non-evidence items were released to Stoune, and no firearms had been
seized by law enforcement. Last, the magistrate judge found that equitable relief
against the government for the destruction of the remaining property was not
warranted because the government never possessed it.
The district court adopted the R&R over Stoune’s objections, denied Stoune’s
motion for return of property, and dismissed the civil action in equity with prejudice
2
Stoune’s motion to vacate remains pending in the district court.
4
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 5 of 8
as to any property ever possessed by the FBI and without prejudice as to any property
never possessed by the FBI. Stoune appealed, and we granted the government’s
motion for summary affirmance. See United States v. Stoune, No. 19-10538 (11th
Cir. Aug. 6, 2019).
While that appeal was pending, Stoune filed the instant motion for return of
property under Rule 41(g), Fed. R. Crim. P., seeking return of “all illegally seized
and otherwise held property currently in the possession of the federal government.”
In his motion, he requested that the court direct the government to return a key ring
and key fob for the Volkswagen, a camera, an iPhone 6 Plus, and a list of other seized
items that can all be categorized as camera equipment (a tripod, memory cards, etc.),
or sexual paraphernalia (sex toys, lubricants, condoms, etc.).
The government responded that the court had ruled in its prior order that (1) no
equitable relief was due for the forfeiture of the Volkswagen, (2) Stoune had
forfeited the camera and iPhone without objection, and (3) Stoune was not entitled
to return of any items in the magistrate judge’s first category, evidence admitted at
trial. It argued that, aside from the key fob, all the items that Stoune listed in his
new motion had been admitted as evidence at trial. In reply, Stoune argued that this
motion sought return of different property than his motion that was previously
denied and that he was entitled to its return because the property had been seized
illegally.
5
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 6 of 8
The district court denied Stoune’s motion, noting that it had previously
considered and denied the same relief and that we had affirmed its decision. Stoune
now appeals.
II.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to return property
and review for clear error its factual findings dealing with such a denial. United
States v. Howell,
425 F.3d 971, 973 (11th Cir. 2005). We review “the equitable
equation of the district court’s decision” to deny the motion for abuse of discretion
only. United States v. Machado,
465 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006), overruled
on other grounds by United States v. Lopez,
562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009).
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), an individual whose
property has been seized by the government may file a motion for return of the
property. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).3 When a defendant invokes Rule 41(g) after the
close of criminal proceedings, the court treats the motion as a civil action in equity.
United States v. Potes Ramirez,
260 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2001). For the
district court to exercise equitable jurisdiction, the property owner “must show that
he had a possessory interest in the property seized by the government” and that he
has “clean hands” with respect to the property. Howell,
425 F.3d at 974.
3
Prior to 2002, this rule was codified at Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e).
6
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 7 of 8
III.
Stoune contends that the district court abused its discretion by deciding his
motion without addressing his claim that the property in question was seized in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. But the district court did not abuse its discretion
by declining to consider this claim, as Stoune did not make the threshold showing
for it to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. See Howell,
425 F.3d at 974.
First, as to the key fob, 4 camera, and iPhone, Stoune did not show that he had
a possessory interest in those items because they had already been forfeited, either
through state or federal process. See
id. As it had specifically addressed these items
in its order denying Stoune’s prior motion, and we affirmed that order on appeal, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Stoune to relitigate the
same claims. See Taylor v. Sturgell,
553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (“Under the doctrine
of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses successive litigation of the very
same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the
earlier suit.” (quotation marks omitted)).
As for the remaining items, whether he specifically sought their return in his
prior motion or not, Stoune is barred from relief by the doctrine of unclean hands.
See Howell,
425 F.3d at 974. The items he wishes to have returned to him were
4
Stoune argues that his prior motion sought only return of the car, not the car’s key fob.
However, he does not provide any reason to believe that the key fob was not forfeited along with
the car—as would be the most logical thing to do with a car key fob.
7
USCA11 Case: 19-14585 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 8 of 8
seized either from his person or his car upon his arrest and were admitted as evidence
to prove the various child pornography offenses levied against him. As these items
are linked to his criminal conduct, Stoune is not entitled to their return. See
id.
Moreover, because Stoune’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate remains pending,
we cannot say that the government will not need these items if there is a new trial.
See Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d at 1314.
IV.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion by declining to exercise its equitable jurisdiction and, accordingly,
properly denied Stoune’s Rule 41(g) motion for return of property.
AFFIRMED.
8
