Notorious film director Roman Polanski wants to return to the United States almost 40 years after fleeing the country. A judge was scheduled to hear new arguments Monday in the 1977 sexual assault case against Polanski. The director said he wanted the case closed and put in the past for good.

Polanski was charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl during a photo shoot at the home of Jack Nicholson in 1977. The director pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and served 42 days in prison as part of a diagnostic study before he was sentenced.

Read: New Charles Manson Prison Interviews Revealed In Documentary

Upon his release, Polanski fled the country and was ultimately never sentenced. The People of the State of California v. Polanski remained an open case. Polanski alleged judicial misconduct in the case and claimed he already spent enough time behind bars.

GettyImages-494968106 Roman Polanski appears at a press conference in Krakow, Poland, Oct. 20, 2015. The almost 40-year-old sexual assault case against the director was set to be revived in court Monday. Photo: Getty Images

“Mr. Polanski is 83 years old and wishes to have this matter resolved without prolonged and costly litigation on various matters involved in the sordid history of this prosecution,” Polanski’s lawyer, Harland Braun, said in a letter to the court in February, according to Bloomberg.

The director has since been residing in Poland. Braun said Polanski would like to return to Los Angeles to visit the grave of his late wife Sharon Tate, who was murdered by the Manson family at Polanski’s rented home in 1969.

Samantha Geimer, the victim of the rape, said she doesn’t think Polanski should return to jail.

“He’s apologized, I forgive him,” she told TMZ in a video interview posted in February. “I know that he’s sorry and he didn’t mean to hurt me. He’s admitted what he did. He went to jail.”

Braun planned to attempt to release secret testimony by the prosecutor in the case upon his return to court Monday. The lawyer alleged that the testimony would unearth the fact that the plea deal stipulated a month and a half in jail, though the judge claimed he had never agreed to such a deal.