- 7 -
action was also that petitioner’s records had been wrongfully
seized. On October 20, 1999, the bankruptcy court granted a
motion for summary judgment in favor of the former employee of
the INS. The bankruptcy court ruled that petitioner’s
“constitutional tort claim” would not stand because petitioner
(plaintiff in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding):
plainly had available the remedies afforded in Rule 41
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by which he
could have challenged the search of the subject offices
and sought return of his property. Plaintiff clearly
knew the search occurred in 1988, because he was at the
site when it took place, and it would be inappropriate
11 years after the fact to imply a private cause of
action against Defendant when Plaintiff could have
availed himself of the Rule 41 remedy at the time of
the search.
The bankruptcy court further held that the action was barred by
the statute of limitations and that the former INS employee
should prevail on his claim of qualified immunity, stating: “No
evidence was adduced in response to * * * [the former employee’s]
assertion that he did not provide any documents to the I.R.S.”
On June 26, 2000, petitioner’s adversary complaint against Nanni
was dismissed and closed.
OPINION
Prior to trial of this case, petitioner’s strategy was to
refuse to cooperate with respondent and instead to pursue
arguments, not raised in the pleadings, that respondent was
somehow precluded from pursuing this case because of misconduct
in relation to the seizure of petitioner’s records in 1988.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011