Naylor v. Allenby et al

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING 32 Motion for Custody of Property, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 04/28/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TROY MITCHELL NAYLOR,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

1:11-cv-01649-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CUSTODY OF PROPERTY
(ECF No. 32)

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,

13

Defendant(s).

14
15
16

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action

19

proceeds against Defendant Duvall on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and

20

Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim. (ECF Nos. 6 & 7.)

21

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for custody of property under Local Rule 550.

22

(ECF No. 32.) Defendant opposed the motion. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff has not filed a

23

reply and the time to do so has passed. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule

24

230(l).

25

II.

MOTION FOR PROPERTY

26

A.

27

Local Rule 550 addresses the seizure of property by the United States Marshal in

28

Legal Standard

admiralty and in rem matters. Upon motion, the Court may order that “a vessel, cargo,

1
2
3

or other property [that] has been taken into custody by the Marshal . . . [be] dispense[d]
with keepers . . . remove[d] or place[d] . . . at a specified facility . . . or designate a
substitute custodian . . .” Local Rule 550(c).

4

B.

5
6

Pursuant to Local Rule 550, Plaintiff seeks return of the property identified in his
Complaint to prevent Defendant from selling, losing, or destroying it.

7
8
9
10

Defendant Duvall contends that Local Rule 550 is not applicable, there is no risk
that the items will be lost or destroyed as they are properly within the custody of CSH
police, and the seized items cannot be returned to Plaintiff because they are either
contraband or contain child pornographic material and are being held as evidence.

11

C.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Parties’ Arguments

Analysis

Local Rule 550 does not apply in this case. Plaintiff’s property has been seized
by CSH police and is in the custody of CSH police – not the United States Marshal. The
Court has not found, and Plaintiff does not cite, any other authority mandating the result
that he requests. Further, based on Defendant Duvall’s declaration, it appears that the
confiscated items have been inventoried and are being held safely within CSH police
custody.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

motion for custody of property be DENIED. (ECF No. 32.)

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

April 28, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28

2