D.D.C.: 1/6 pardonee doesn’t state claim under FTCA for having to go to trial

Plaintiff has a 1/6 pardon. She sued over things the government did to obtain her conviction. She fails to state a claim under the FTCA for alleged disclosure of private information during the trial. “Although the FTCA waives the United States’ immunity for certain tort claims demanding money damages, it exempts from that waiver ‘[a]ny claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).” Price v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253100 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2025).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a contraband cell phone in prison notwithstanding state law that allows some via the MDOC. United States v. Pouncy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253350 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2025).*

Defendant was stopped at 4 am after pulling behind a medical building, a place known for car break-ins, when he was coming back to the street. The search of his car after that was unreasonable and unjustified. It turns out, however, he was on federal supervised release for access device fraud and he had credit cards of others on him. By the time of issuance of a warrant, he’d failed to report the contact and was in violation of release conditions, and that broke the causal chain to the illegal stop. United States v. Nassar, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253232 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Attenuation, Cell phones, Federal Tort Claims Act, Prison and jail searches. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.