Full text
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 234 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
1463
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW
v.
NATHAN REARDON
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 41(G)
The Government, by and through undersigned counsel, opposes Defendant
Nathan Reardon’s pro se Motion for Return of Property Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41(g) (the “Motion” or “Mot.,” Dkt. #231, Mar. 14, 2025). By his
Motion, Defendant seeks the return of a passport (his own) as well as the return of two
firearms (allegedly not his own) to third-parties. Mot. at 3.
Defendant’s passport was not “seized.” Contra Mot. 1-3. It was instead
surrendered by Defendant as a condition of his bail. See Dkt. #16, Apr. 16, 2021. Rule
41(g) therefore does not apply. That said, the Government has no objection to
Defendant retrieving his passport from the Clerk’s Office. The Government has
confirmed with the assigned U.S. Probation Officer that Defendant could have retrieved
his passport at any time, and may do so now without any further delay on his part.
As to the two firearms, Rule 41(g) does not empower Defendant to pursue the
relief requested. The rule provides:
A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by
the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The
motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The
court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the
motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the
movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the
property and its use in later proceedings.
1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 234 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
1464
Id. (emphasis added). Post-conviction Rule 41(g) motions are treated as civil complaints
for equitable relief. See United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509, 511 (1st Cir. 1995). Where
“the defendant is not entitled to lawful possession of the seized property,” though, a
“Rule 41(g) motion is properly denied.” United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 87 (1st
Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Here, Defendant lacks standing to move for the return of the firearms because he
is not a “person aggrieved.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(g). Defendant asserts that he neither
owned nor possessed the firearms. Mot. at 2. Rather, the firearms allegedly “belong to
third parties”—Defendant’s wife, Heather Reardon, and his father, Arthur Reardon. Id.
at 1-3. Consequently, he “is not entitled to lawful possession 1 of the seized property,”
and the Motion “should be denied.” Pierre, 484 F.3d at 87. Relatedly, Defendant—as a
non-lawyer—is barred from litigating the interests of his wife and his father in personal
property. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (in federal courts parties may only “plead and conduct
their own cases personally or by counsel”). “By law an individual may appear in federal
courts only pro se or through legal counsel,” and not through “third-party lay
representation.” Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1982).
WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Motion be denied
for the reasons stated herein.
1 Defendant also is “barred by [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g)(1) due to his non-violent felony convictions,”
although he is currently challenging the constitutionality of that prohibition as it applies to him. See Dkt.
#232 at 1, Mar. 20, 2025.
2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 234 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
1465
Dated: March 31, 2025 Respectfully submitted
Bangor, Maine
CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Andrew K. Lizotte
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov
3
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 234 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
1466
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 31, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing using
the CM/ECF system, which will send an electronic notification of such filing to all
counsel of record, and that I have further caused the same to be mailed to Defendant’s
last known address of record.
CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Andrew K. Lizotte
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov
4