Case Explained: CANNON V. USA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 Docket: 5:19-cv-02337- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States in a motion filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking the return of $218,000 seized from the appellant’s safe by an FBI agent who subsequently stole and spent the funds. The court held that sovereign immunity does not bar a Rule 41(g) claim when the government has lost seized cash but later recovers funds traceable to those specific proceeds through restitution or forfeiture proceedings against the responsible agent. Distinguishing its prior holding in *Ordonez v. United States*, which barred money damages for lost property, the panel reasoned that because money is fungible and lacks intrinsic value distinct from its exchange value, a claim for the return of recovered funds constitutes a specific equitable remedy rather than an award of money damages. Consequently, the court determined that the government possesses the “property” sought by the appellant. On the merits, the court applied the standard requiring the government to demonstrate a legitimate reason to retain seized property once the movant has established a presumptive right to its return. The panel found that the government failed to meet this burden because it conceded that forfeiture proceedings for the stolen funds were time-barred and offered no evidence to rebut the appellant’s claim of lawful possession, despite the appellant providing documentation regarding lawful sources of income intermingled with illicit proceeds. The district court’s reliance on the appellant’s plea agreement to infer a forfeiture of all cash in the safe was deemed an impermissible shift of the burden of proof. As a result, the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, where the government bears the burden of proving how much recovered money is traceable to the stolen funds and demonstrating a legitimate basis for retaining any portion of it. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.