Jaber v. Hanley
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-00998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jaber v. Hanley, Judge McMahon ordered service of Faouzi Jaber’s claims but did not decide their merits.
Faouzi Jaber, Christina Hanley, and the United States are affected. The order requires the Clerk of Court and the United States Marshals Service to arrange service and requires Jaber to monitor service and keep the court informed of address changes.
What happened
Jaber v. Hanley concerns Faouzi Jaber’s claims about the alleged seizure of his personal property. Jaber, who is incarcerated and representing himself, seeks the return of his passport and money damages from Drug Enforcement Agency Agent Christina Hanley. The court also understood his complaint to seek return of property from the government under a federal criminal-procedure rule.
The court had already allowed Jaber to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. Because he is proceeding that way, the court arranged for the United States Marshals Service to serve Hanley and the United States. Jaber must make sure service occurs within 90 days after the summons is issued and must tell the court if his address changes.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, complete the service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. This order addresses service only; it does not decide whether Jaber’s claims are legally or factually valid.
The detailed version
- Jaber v. Hanley · No. 1:24-cv-00998
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 8, 2024
Background
Faouzi Jaber, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Gilmer, West Virginia, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleges that Drug Enforcement Agency Agent Christina Hanley seized his personal property. He seeks damages from Hanley under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a Supreme Court decision recognizing certain constitutional damages claims against federal officials. He also seeks injunctive relief—the return of his passport.
The court construed the complaint as asserting two types of claims: a claim against the government under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking the return of property connected to Jaber’s closed criminal case, and a damages claim against Hanley under Bivens. The court had previously granted Jaber permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion notes that prisoners who receive that permission still must pay the full filing fee over time as required by federal law.
Service Ruling
The court did not decide the merits of Jaber’s claims. Instead, it directed that the case be served. Because Jaber is proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Hanley, complete a United States Marshals Service process form, mark the form for service on the United States, and send the necessary documents to the Marshals Service for service on Hanley and the United States.
The court extended Jaber’s service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. Jaber remains responsible for ensuring that service is completed within that period and for requesting an extension if necessary. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Jaber an information package and warned that the action may be dismissed if he does not notify the court of an address change.
Disposition
The court entered an order directing service. It did not grant or deny the underlying damages or property claims and did not determine whether those claims may proceed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.