Jacobsen v. People of the State of California

Filing 97

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Order Fresno Police Department to Return his Backpack for Lack of Jurisdiction 82 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/22/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00108-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ORDER FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT
TO RETURN HIS BACKPACK FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
(Doc.82)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on claims of

19

excessive force, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and retaliation on events that

20

occurred while he was in custody at the Fresno County Jail. On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed

21

a motion seeking an order directing the Fresno Police Department (FPD) to transport a backpack

22

that he had with him when he was arrested, to the Fresno County Jail (FCJ) as it contains his

23

documents for this action and to order that, for any future arrests, it be booked with him as “bulk

24

property” at the FCJ. (Doc. 82.)

25

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

26

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it

27

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102

28

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454
1

1

U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no

2

power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18

3

U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find

4

the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

5

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

6

Federal right.@

7

Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over the FPD,

8

or over where or how Plaintiff=s property is booked/stored when he is arrested. Summers v. Earth

9

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th

10

Cir. 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable

11

legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599

12

F.3d at 969.

13

Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction

14

against any of the Defendants in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction if it has

15

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not

16

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s
motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the FPD.
The issue is not that Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to
relief if sought in the proper forum. However, Plaintiff=s statements that the FPD will destroy his
backpack and its contents cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523
U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of
Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing its existence.@) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for conveyance
of the relief Plaintiff seeks.
However, Fresno Police Chief and the Fresno County Sheriff are requested to look into
the matter and, if at all possible, to facilitate Plaintiff=s access to his backpack and materials

27
28
2

1

contained in it to allow Plaintiff to complete and file responses as required in this action.1

2

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive relief, filed

3

October 18, 2016 (Doc. 82), is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Clerk's Office is

4

directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion to the Fresno County Sheriff’s

5

Office and the Fresno Police Department that they might take any possible efforts to facilitate

6

Plaintiff's access to his property as necessary to prosecute this action.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 22, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

How access is best facilitated in light of Plaintiff=s housing status and other custody or classification factors is
left to the sound discretion of the Fresno Police and County officials.

3