Jaber v. Hanley

Background

Faouzi Jaber sued Christina Hanley, whom the opinion identifies as a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent. Jaber alleged that Hanley took custody of his belongings during his 2016 extradition from the Czech Republic and did not return them. The listed belongings included jewelry, watches, family heirlooms, gold pens, diamonds, legal documents, passports, and currency. Jaber alleged that the property was worth more than $8 million.

Jaber sought damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, a Supreme Court decision recognizing a limited damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers. He also sought the return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which allows a person claiming unlawful deprivation of property to ask for its return. Jaber was representing himself.

Before this case, Jaber had sought the return of the property in an earlier related proceeding and later through motions connected to his criminal case. The court handling those later motions found that the Government had returned all of Jaber’s property in its possession. Jaber then filed this action, which he amended. Hanley moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim.

Bivens claim

The court held that Jaber’s constitutional property-deprivation claim could not proceed under Bivens. The Supreme Court has recognized Bivens damages remedies in only three settings involving certain Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims. A case that differs meaningfully from those settings presents a new Bivens context.

The court concluded that a Fifth Amendment due-process claim concerning the loss of personal property presented a new Bivens context. It then considered whether special factors counseled against creating a damages remedy. The court identified an alternative administrative remedy under 31 U.S.C. § 3724, which permits the Attorney General to settle certain claims for loss of or damage to privately owned property caused by an investigative or law-enforcement officer acting within the scope of employment, up to $50,000 per case.

Although Jaber claimed more than $50,000, the court held that the potential inability to recover the full claimed amount did not make the administrative remedy inadequate. The court therefore concluded that Jaber’s Bivens claim failed both because it sought an extension of Bivens to a new context and because he had not pursued the available administrative remedy.

Rule 41(g) property-return claim

The court treated Jaber’s Rule 41(g) request as a standalone civil proceeding because the criminal case connected to the request had ended. Hanley argued that the request was barred by res judicata, a rule that prevents a party from relitigating claims that were resolved, or could have been raised, in an earlier action.

The court applied a three-part test: whether the earlier proceeding resulted in a decision on the merits, whether the earlier proceeding involved the same opposing parties or parties with legally aligned interests, and whether the later claims were raised or could have been raised earlier.

The court found all three requirements satisfied. It determined that the earlier denial of Jaber’s renewed Rule 41(g) motion was a decision on the merits because the earlier court relied on evidence that the Government had returned Jaber’s passports to his former lawyer and had returned all other property in its possession. The court also found that Hanley’s interest was virtually identical to the United States’ interest in opposing the earlier property-return request. Finally, it found that the property described in Jaber’s current complaint was the same property described in the earlier Rule 41(g) motion.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Hanley’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jaber permission to appeal without paying filing fees.