UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LUIS H. JAQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-355-JTM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER Luis H. Jaquez, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion asking for search warrant documents. (DE # 2.) Jaquez argues he is entitled to access under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), the common law, and the First Amendment. Under any theory of the case, the clerk appropriately used this filing to open a new civil action.1 “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

1 Even Criminal Rule 41(g) motions are civil proceedings subject to both civil filing fees and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Abu-Shawish v. United States,

(7th Cir. 2018). The motion says Jaquez wants warrant documents related to the wiretap of cell phone 619-789-3133. This is not the first time he has sought these documents. In

December 2020, he made the same request with a motion filed in the search warrant case. In the Matter of: Precision location global positioning (GPS) data, cellular tower data, call detail acquired through Pen Register/Trap & Trace for Sprint cell number 619-789-3133, 3:16- mj-50 (N.D. Ind. filed October 12, 2016). After receiving a response from the United States of America, the court ordered “the Application [DE 1], Affidavit [DE 1-1], and Warrant [DE 2]” unsealed for Jaquez.”

at DE # 10. That order, issued January 22,

2021, allowed him to purchase copies of those documents from the clerk. The same day, the clerk sent him a letter saying the cost was $10.00 for those twenty pages. For more than four years, the clerk has waited for Jaquez to pay $10.00 and request those copies. It is unclear why Jaquez filed this motion, but it is clear he already has access to the documents he seeks.

For these reasons, the motion (DE # 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED.

Date: April 25, 2025 s/James T. Moody . JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT