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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?