Opinion ID: 4662098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for damages

Text: For the same reason, the district court did not err in denying Sivanadiyan’s motion for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa. Section 2000aa provides: [I]t shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, 7 Sivanadiyan alleged that the government “orchestrated” a scheme for Moon Credit to foreclose on the Texas property and seize all of the belongings in it. Despite her unsupported, conclusory allegations, the fact remains that she acknowledges that the property was foreclosed upon by a private entity. She further alleges that some of the seized property is in the “control” of Moon Credit and stored in a Texas storage unit (not in government possession). 8 Since we agree that Sivanadiyan failed to show she is entitled to relief under Rule 41(g), it is unnecessary for us to consider the district court’s alternative reason for denying her Rule 41(g) motion—that Sivanadiyan had unclean hands. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 974 (“[I]n order for a district court to grant a Rule 41(g) motion, the owner of the property must have clean hands.”). Because we determine that Sivanadiyan is not eligible for the return of her property under Rule 41(g), we need not address Sivanadiyan’s arguments that she was entitled to summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings based on the same underlying allegation. 6 USCA11 Case: 19-13726 Date Filed: 02/23/2021 Page: 7 of 8 to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce[.] 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) (emphasis added). Without addressing the merits of whether a civil motion for damages under § 2000aa-6 can be filed in a closed criminal case converted to a civil equitable action under Rule 41(g), we find Sivanadiyan’s motion for damages meritless. Section 2000aa-6 provides a damages remedy against a government actor that unlawfully searches or seizes such materials. 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6. Because 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6 does not provide relief when a private party, rather than a government officer or employee, does the “seizing,” we affirm the district court’s denial of Sivanadiyan’s motion for compensatory damages.