Teman v. United States

Background

Ari Teman filed this action in the Southern District of Florida on June 4, 2025. Although he labeled it a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II determined that the requested relief could be sought only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred the case to the Southern District of New York, the court that had imposed Teman’s sentence. The petition sought an order releasing Teman from his supervised-release term. Alternatively, it sought an order directing the United States Probation Department to recommend remote or no supervision and permission for Teman to reside in Israel during the rest of his supervised release.

The court had ordered Teman to return to the United States by June 1, 2025. The Probation Department later reported alleged supervised-release violations, including failure to comply with the travel restriction requiring his return. The court scheduled Teman’s arraignment on those allegations for July 7, 2025, but Teman did not appear, so the court adjourned the proceeding without arraigning him. The opinion also notes that the court had denied an earlier § 2255 application on June 26, 2025.

Fugitive-disentitlement doctrine

The court applied the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine, which permits a court to refuse to decide a person’s post-conviction claims while that person is evading the justice system. The court described a two-step test: it must first determine whether the person is a fugitive, and it may then decide whether barring the claim would further the doctrine’s purposes. Those purposes include ensuring that a decision can be enforced, penalizing disregard of court procedures, discouraging flight and promoting efficient court operations, and avoiding prejudice to the opposing side.

The court found that Teman was a fugitive. It relied on the firm return deadline, the repeated warnings about the consequences of failing to return, the court’s conclusion that Teman’s stated inability to fly was contrived, the available option of traveling by boat, and Teman’s failure both to return and to appear for arraignment. The court also noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had dismissed as frivolous Teman’s challenges to the return orders.

Disposition

The court concluded that applying the doctrine would further its purposes. In particular, Teman’s absence could impair enforcement of a decision, avoiding the pending supervised-release violation proceeding could prejudice the government and the court’s administration of that proceeding, and allowing the petition to proceed could permit a collateral challenge to the alleged violations while Teman remained absent. The court therefore exercised its discretion to stay this action under the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. It did not decide the merits of Teman’s requested relief. The court stated that it would entertain an application to lift the stay upon a showing that Teman was no longer a fugitive.