Leyland v. Edwards
797 F. Supp. 2d 7
D.D.C.2011Background
- Leyland, a plaintiff, had two firearms, ammunition, and two holsters seized by the U.S. Park Police on May 23, 2009.
- Leyland was charged in DC Superior Court with possession of two unregistered firearms and unlawful possession of ammunition; the ammunition charge was later dropped.
- Leyland pleaded guilty on October 26, 2009; he received six months' unsupervised probation completed April 26, 2010.
- No order of forfeiture of the seized property was entered by the Superior Court; Leyland’s counsel requested return of his property on August 9, 2010.
- The Park Police did not return the property; Leyland filed suit on December 30, 2010 seeking damages under Bivens and injunctive relief to recover the property.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on April 21, 2011; the court granted the motion, dismissing with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 41(g) divests Bivens claim | Leyland argues the remedy is constitutional and independent of Rule 41(g). | Edwards argues Rule 41(g) provides the adequate, comprehensive remedy, precluding Bivens. | Bivens claim barred; Rule 41(g) provides an adequate remedy. |
| If Bivens not barred, whether Edwards is entitled to qualified immunity | Leyland contends a constitutional violation occurred by withholding property. | Edwards argues the denial was objectively reasonable and not a violation given precedent. | Edwards is entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether injunctive relief is available against Edwards in his individual capacity | Leyland seeks injunctive relief to compel return of property. | Injunctive relief cannot be granted against an individual in his personal capacity. | Injunctive relief against Edwards in his personal capacity is unavailable; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizes implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional rights violations)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (special factors counsel against expanding Bivens remedies)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (limits on Bivens where comprehensive remedial schemes exist)
- Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remedies need not be complete to preclude Bivens)
- Ford v. Turner, 531 A.2d 233 (D.C. 1987) (distinguishes notice procedures in seizure challenges when legitimate procedures exist)
- United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (unregistered firearms are contraband; affects remedy considerations)
- Guishard v. United States, 669 A.2d 1306 (D.C. 1995) (constitutionality and remedy considerations for seized property)
- United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (no right to return of seized property absent proper procedure)
- Boggs v. Rubin, 161 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (labels related to property seizure and remedies)
- United States v. Farrell, 606 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (seizure procedures and remedies considerations)