United States v. Jackson Baugus

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30117
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:02-cr-00133-SPW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JACKSON BRYANT BAUGUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jackson Bryant Baugus appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment for the government in his action for return of property under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court concluded that Baugus was not entitled to relief because
the property he sought was not in the possession of the United States. However, at
the government’s urging, the court ordered the government to find a way to return
the property to Baugus and instructed Baugus to “provide to the United States the
name and address of a person authorized to take possession of all of his property
remaining in the custody of the Billings Police Department.” Rather than provide
that information to the government, Baugus filed the instant appeal.
We need not reach Baugus’s contention that the United States constructively
possessed the property at issue because, even if that is correct, Baugus has obtained
all the relief to which he may be entitled. The district court has already ordered the
government to return his property and, contrary to Baugus’s contention, he may
not obtain money damages under Rule 41(g), see Ordonez v. United States, 680
F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]n award of money damages against the
government under Rule 41(g) is barred by sovereign immunity.”). To the extent
Baugus challenges the district court’s 2004 final order of forfeiture and its
subsequent writs of garnishment and disbursement orders, we will not consider
those arguments because they were raised for the first time in Baugus’s reply brief,
see United States v. King, 257 F.3d 1013, 1029 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001), and they are
beyond the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-30117