Teman v. United States Probation Service

Background

Ari Teman, representing himself, filed this action as a civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The defendants include the United States Probation Service, several named individuals, the Department of Justice, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Teman seeks, among other relief, an order directing the Probation Service to recommend remote or no supervision of his ongoing supervised-release term and allowing him to live in Israel during the remainder of that term.

The case was assigned as related to the earlier criminal case from which Teman’s supervised-release term arose. The order recounts that orders in that criminal case set a June 1, 2025 deadline for Teman to return to the United States. It also states that the Second Circuit declined to pause those orders and dismissed Teman’s appeals of those orders and of the denials of his requests for a different judge as frivolous. The Probation Service later issued a report alleging supervised-release violations, and the court scheduled a July 7, 2025 hearing at which Teman was to be arraigned on the alleged violations.

Filing-fee requirement

To begin a civil action in the district court, a plaintiff must either pay the required fees or request permission to proceed without prepaying them. Teman submitted his complaint without paying the $405 filing and administrative fees and without submitting the required application.

The court ordered Teman to do one of two things within 30 days of the order: pay the $405 in fees or submit the attached application to proceed without prepaying fees. The order states that payment may be made by the methods and at the address specified by the court, and that an application should include docket number 25-CV-4699 (PAE).

Effect of the order

No summons will issue at this time. If Teman complies, the court will determine whether this action, which partly challenges the execution of his sentence, is properly brought as a civil-rights action. If he does not comply within the allowed period, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.

The court also stated that Teman’s filing of this civil action does not alter any deadlines or obligations in the related criminal case. The order notes that Teman had not consented to electronic service or provided a mailing address, which the court said was his responsibility. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Teman’s claims.