Legal Opinion
Akeem v. United States
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided February 22, 2012No. 10 CV 4498(RJD)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DEARIE, District Judge.
Olushola Akeem moves pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the return of property seized by the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) during his arrest in 2008. Because the criminal proceeding resulting from that arrest has terminated, see United States v. Akeem, 08 CR 180(RJD), ECF No. 16, the Court construes Akeem’s motion as a civil action in equity. See Diaz v. United States, 517 F.3d 608, 610 (2d Cir.2008) (“A Rule 41(g) motion that is brought after the criminal proceeding is over is treated as a civil…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Ali v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Acosta v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2022
- Miglab Travaux et Services v. United States of America and International Armoring CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2026