Jaber v. Hanley

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FAOUZI JABER,

Plaintiff,

– against – ORDER 24-cv-00998 (ER) CHRISTINA HANLEY,

Defendant.

Ramos, D.J.: Faouzi Jaber brought this pro se action arising from the alleged seizure of his personal property by the government. Doc. 1. The Court issued an order of service stating that it would construe the complaint as asserting (1) claims against the government for injunctive relief (for the return of his passport) under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), and (2) claims against Christina Hanley for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Doc. 9. Hanley, represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Docs. 20, 21. Hanley’s motion does not address the claims for injunctive relief under Rule 41(g). Cf. Allen v. Grist Mill Cap. LLC, 88 F.4th 383, 396 (2d Cir. 2023) (“[O]nce the criminal proceeding is completed, there is a presumption that non-contraband property should be returned to its owner and, thus, the evidentiary burden under Rule 41(g) shifts to the government to demonstrate that it has a ‘legitimate reason’ for retaining the seized property.”). Jaber is directed to file his response to the motion by October 16, 2024. Hanley is directed to reply by October 23, 2024. Hanley’s reply should address whether she is seeking to dismiss the claims for injunctive relief under Rule 41(g). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Jaber.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024 } : New York, New York et \ □□ Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J