Jaber v. Hanley
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-00998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jaber v. Hanley, Judge Ramos ordered briefing on Hanley’s dismissal motion and required her reply to address Jaber’s unresolved property-return claims.
Faouzi Jaber and Christina Hanley; the order sets briefing deadlines and requires clarification about whether the motion to dismiss includes Jaber’s claims seeking return of his passport.
What happened
In Jaber v. Hanley, Faouzi Jaber, representing himself, sued Christina Hanley over the alleged government seizure of his personal property.
The court had understood the complaint to seek the return of Jaber’s passport from the government and damages from Hanley. Hanley moved to dismiss the damages claims for failure to state a claim, but her motion did not address the passport-return claims.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed Jaber to respond by October 16, 2024, and Hanley to reply by October 23, 2024. The court instructed Hanley’s reply to clarify whether she also sought dismissal of the passport-return claims and ordered that Jaber receive a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Jaber v. Hanley · No. 1:24-cv-00998
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 18, 2024
Background
Faouzi Jaber brought this self-represented action based on the alleged seizure of his personal property by the government. In an earlier service order, the court understood the complaint to assert two types of claims: claims against the government seeking injunctive relief—the return of Jaber’s passport—under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), and damages claims against Christina Hanley under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a case recognizing certain constitutional damages claims against federal officers.
Hanley, represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Her motion did not address the Rule 41(g) claims seeking injunctive relief. The order noted that, after a criminal proceeding ends, non-contraband property is presumed to be returned to its owner, and the government must then give a legitimate reason for keeping it.
Court’s Action
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide Hanley’s motion in this order. Instead, the court directed Jaber to respond by October 16, 2024, and Hanley to file a reply by October 23, 2024. The court specifically required Hanley’s reply to address whether she sought dismissal of the Rule 41(g) claims for injunctive relief. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Jaber a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.