D.Minn.: Ptf was a bombing victim seeking return of property under equitable jurisdiction; 3 of 4 factors weigh against her, so denied

Plaintiff was a bombing victim and property was taken from her by consent. She wanted some of it back and brought an action under equitable jurisdiction for return of the property. “A district court’s exercise of equitable jurisdiction over a cause of action for the return of property initiated before criminal charges are filed is proper only if the movant establishes that (1) the respondent acted with a callous disregard of the Fourth Amendment, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury if relief is not granted, and (3) the movant lacks an adequate remedy at law. ;.. The district court also may consider whether the movant has an individual interest in and need for the property. … It is the movant’s burden to demonstrate that the relevant factors are satisfied.” Only the last favors her. So, three out of four favor the government, and the action is dismissed without prejudice. Wilansky v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144958 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2018).

This entry was posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.