ORDER TRANSFERRING Case and Directing Clerk to Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/25/17: Case transferred to the Central District of California. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE DETENTION
AND SEIZURE OF IPHONE AND
Case No. 1:17-mc-00019-SKO
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE AND
DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
On March 30, 2017, the movant, Myron F. Smith, filed a Motion to Return Property
17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) (the “Motion”). (Doc. 1.) Rule 41(g) states
18 that such a motion “must be filed in the district where the property was seized.” In other words,
19 venue is only proper under Rule 41(g) in the district where the items at issue were seized. See,
20 e.g., Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Unidentified FBI Agents, 394 F. Supp. 2d 34, 48 n.14 (D.D.C.
21 2005) (“Under the current version of [Rule 41(g)], a motion seeking return of property is only
22 proper in the district where the property was seized.”).
Here, the movant states in the Motion that the materials that are the subject of the Motion
24 were seized by customs officials at the Los Angeles International Airport. (Doc. 1 at 1–2.) As
25 such, the only appropriate venue for the Motion is the district that encompasses the Los Angeles
26 International Airport―namely, the United States District Court for the Central District of
27 California. The Court therefore finds that this District is not the proper venue for the Motion and
28 this case is appropriately transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of
1 California. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case
2 laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
3 transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”); Elfand v.
4 United States, 161 F. App’x 150, 151 (2d Cir. 2006) (transferring the case under 28 U.S.C. §
5 1406(a) . . . to . . . the court in which venue is proper pursuant to” Federal Rule of Criminal
6 Procedure 41(g)).
Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the
8 Central District of California. As the Court transfers this case, it VACATES the hearing regarding
9 the Motion currently scheduled for May 31, 2017. Finally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close
10 this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 25, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?