S.D.Cal.: A pending forfeiture action in another district justifies dismissal of Rule 41(g) motion because there is another remedy

This is a Rule 41(g) action for return of property, a superyacht owned by a Russian oligarch seized allegedly in violation of Russian sanctions. The next day, a forfeiture action was filed in the S.D.N.Y., and that provided an adequate remedy at law and the 41(g) case is dismissed. Khudainatov v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203081 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023).

The search warrant for defendant’s saliva was for DNA testing, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging that. Johnson v. Secretary, Florida Dept. Corr., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30192 (11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023).*

Prison cell search: “Therefore, insofar as Plaintiff claims that he was subject to unreasonable cell searches in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 and is subject to dismissal.” Harrison v. Campbell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203160 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023).*

An arrest warrant grants limited authority to officers to enter to arrest, but not to conduct a search. State v. Tumblin, 2023-Ohio-4099 (5th Dist. Nov. 14, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, DNA, Prison and jail searches, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.