UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 18, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
LARRY ST. CLAIR II, DEFENDANT.
On December 14, 2009, defendant Larry St. Clair filed a motion for return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). On September 2, 2010, defendant filed a "Motion for Request for Order" on the merits of Rule 41(g) motion. On September 3, 2010, defendant filed a document entitled "Constitutional Challenge to a Statute Notice, Certification and Intervention, Pursuant to F.R.Cv.P., Rule 5.1(a),(2)(b). On September 13, 2010, defendant filed a document entitled "Motion for Objection for Lack of Ratification of Commencement FRCvP 17(a)(1)." The United States filed its opposition to defendant's motions on October 8, 2010.
In its response, the United States represents that the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department released all non-contraband property seized from defendant to an individual believed to be defendant's father. Defendant's Rule 41(g) motion will therefore be denied.
With regard to defendant's other motions, the court recognizes that it is customary to characterize pro se pleadings in such a way as to make them fit within some recognized statutory or procedural framework and to analyze them accordingly. The court simply doesn't have the creativity or imagination to do so here. Even pro se litigants have some obligation to make sense out of their pleadings. Because the court cannot make sense out of them, they will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's pending motions be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.