United States of America v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Tayan Jackson,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Case No. 18-cr-20462-1
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR THE RETURN OF PROPERTY [108]
Before the Court is pro se Defendant Tayan Jackson’s renewed
motion for the return of property. (ECF No. 108.) The motion is dated
July 11, 2025 (id. at PageID.533), and it was filed on the docket on
July 16, 2025. The government responded to the motion on August 6,
2025. (ECF No. 111.) Defendant did not file a reply, and the time for
him to do so has elapsed. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
denied without prejudice.
In his motion, Defendant “seeks the return of” an Apple MacBook
Pro, an Apple MacBook Air, three Apple iPads, four Apple iPhones, a
Case 5:18-cr-20462-JEL-APP ECF No. 115, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 4

2
United States passport, and a United States passport card. (ECF
No. 108, PageID.531.) The government indicates in its response that the
four iPhones—plus two additional cell phones—were shipped to
Defendant via FedEx on July 23, 2025. (ECF No. 111, PageID.540–541.)
According to the government, “[t]he package containing the cell phones
was, in fact, delivered on Friday, July 25, 2025, at 11:24AM, and signed
for by ‘T. Jackson.’” (Id. at PageID.541.) With respect to the MacBook
computers, the government indicates that the case agent has been
communicating with Defendant about the return of those devices. (Id. at
PageID.541–542.) As for the passport book and the passport card, the
government states:
The case agent reminded [Defendant] that those items
remain in the custody of Pretrial Services in New York and
that the case agent does not have the ability to return them.
The case agent also inquired as to why [Defendant] would
need international travel documents, given the case agent’s
understanding that [Defendant] was not allowed to travel
internationally while on supervised release. [Defendant]
responded that he was concerned his passport card was
about to expire. The case agent suggested that [Defendant]
could request a replacement at the end of his term of
Supervision, and [Defendant] stated that was a good idea.
(Id. at PageID.542.) The government does not address the three iPads
referenced in Defendant’s motion.
Case 5:18-cr-20462-JEL-APP ECF No. 115, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Based on the government’s submission discussing the ongoing
efforts and communications regarding the return of Defendant’s
property, it appears to the Court that Defendant’s motion is resolved.
Defendant did not file a reply in which he demonstrates otherwise. The
parties have not indicated to the Court whether the iPads have been
returned to Defendant; however, the Court trusts that the parties are
handling that issue as well. The Court again finds that an order
releasing Defendant’s property is unnecessary. (See ECF No. 107,
PageID.528.) Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice so that, if
necessary, any issues that remain unresolved may be brought to the
Court’s attention.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s renewed motion for
the return of property (ECF No. 108) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
Case 5:18-cr-20462-JEL-APP ECF No. 115, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 4

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 25, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:18-cr-20462-JEL-APP ECF No. 115, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 4