Teman v. United States Probation Service

Background

Ari Teman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the constitutional damages remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The defendants include the United States Probation Service, individual defendants, and federal agencies. Teman’s complaint appears to seek, among other relief, an order requiring changes to supervision of his ongoing supervised-release term, permission to reside in Israel during the remainder of that term, and damages.

The case was assigned to the court as related to Teman’s criminal case, from which his supervised-release term arose. In that criminal case, the court had ordered Teman to return to the United States by June 1, 2025. The opinion states that Teman had been in Israel with the court’s permission, but did not return by the deadline. The Probation Department later reported alleged supervised-release violations, including violating travel restrictions. Teman was scheduled to appear for an arraignment on those allegations on July 7, 2025, but did not appear, so the court adjourned the proceeding without arraigning him.

Fugitive-disentitlement doctrine

The court applied the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. This doctrine permits a court to refuse to decide a litigant’s claims while the litigant is evading the court’s authority. The court described a two-step inquiry: first, determine whether the litigant is a fugitive; second, decide whether refusing to hear the case would further the doctrine’s purposes.

The court found that Teman was a fugitive because he did not comply with the firm return deadline, did not appear for the scheduled hearing, and had received repeated warnings about the consequences of failing to return. The court also noted that the Second Circuit had dismissed Teman’s appeals of the return orders as frivolous.

The court concluded that pausing the action would further the doctrine’s purposes. It reasoned that allowing Teman to seek damages concerning the alleged supervised-release violations while avoiding the related violation proceeding would permit him to challenge those matters outside the proceeding where they were pending. The court also found that his absence could impair enforcement of a decision, penalize disregard of the judicial process, discourage evasion, and reduce prejudice to the defendants.

Disposition

The court exercised its discretion to stay the action under the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. A stay pauses the case; the opinion did not decide the merits of Teman’s claims or dismiss the action. The court stated that it would entertain an application to lift the stay upon a showing that Teman was no longer a fugitive.