Ancillary jurisdiction for return of property under Rule 41(g) is exercised with great restraint. Here, there is a remedy in the criminal case. United States v. Huggins, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59773 (S.D. N.Y. March 22, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Because it is an equitable remedy, a Rule 41(g) motion “is available only when there is no adequate remedy at law and the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction.” De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382 (citation omitted). Moreover, jurisdiction under Rule 41 “is to be exercised with great restraint and caution since it rests upon the court’s supervisory power over the actions of federal law enforcement officers.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Dean, 80 F.3d 1535, 1542 (11th Cir. 1996) (equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) “is only appropriate in exceptional cases where equity demands intervention”); United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 95 Mag. 2167 (NRB), 1995 WL 758762, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 1995) (“When faced with situations where claimants have an available forum to contest the lawfulness of a seizure, courts routinely have refused to adopt jurisdiction over Rule 41[(g)] motions.”). See generally 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure \u00a7 11.2(h) (5th ed. 2011) (“This anomalous jurisdiction, the federal cases indicate, is to be exercised with caution and restraint and subject to equitable principles.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading