Hammed Adeleke v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized property, does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to actions for money damages relating to such property.”
• “It is, of course, ‘axiomatic’ under the principle of sovereign immunity ‘that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.’” (citation omitted)
• failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a jurisdictional bar to FTCA claims
• on jurisdictionally deficient pro se Rule 41(g) motion for return of destroyed property, Court considers possible due process and other damages claims under the sovereign immunity waivers in the Tucker Act, the “Little Tucker Act,” and the FTCA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).