Abu-Shawish v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff’s pro se request for issuance of certificate of innocence under circumstances where: (1) plaintiff’s conviction on charge of federal program fraud was reversed by Ct. of Appeals, which had observed that govt. could have proceeded against plaintiff on mail or wire fraud charges; (2) plaintiff was subsequently acquitted of mail fraud and fraud under 18 USC section 2314 charges; and (3) plaintiff needed certificate of innocence to establish his damage claim under 28 USC sections 1495 and 2513 for unjust conviction and imprisonment. Plaintiff’s petition was dismissed without any response from government and without any meaningful opportunity for plaintiff to be heard. Moreover, Dist. Ct. applied too strict pleading standard by requiring plaintiff to provide independent evidentiary submissions, where such evidence was not required under Rule 8. Fact that plaintiff did not spell out evidence supporting his petition did not require different result. Upon remand, Dist. Ct. must allow govt. opportunity to respond to said petition and must make independent determination as to whether plaintiff’s conduct constituted any crime under federal or state law.