No. 24-5133
Brian Wright v. United States, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: district-court equitable-jurisdiction exceptional-circumstances federal-insurance federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure motion-to-return person ramsden-factors rule-41g standing
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Federal Insurance Company have standing to file a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did Federal Insurance Company have standing to file a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) when Federal Insurance Company is not a “person” for Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) purposes? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction over motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), when equitable jurisdiction is limited to “exceptional” or “anomalous” circumstances? 3. Did the district court err in granting a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) when the Ramsden factors demonstrated Federal Insurance Company was not entitled to relief? i
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-08-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-31
Waiver of United States, et al. of right to respond submitted.
2024-07-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2024-07-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 22, 2024)
Attorneys
Brian Wright
Angela Helen Dows — Cory Reade Dows & Shafer, Petitioner
Angela Helen Dows — Cory Reade Dows & Shafer, Petitioner
United States, et al.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent