Filing 11

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 10 IN THE MATTER OF THE DETENTION AND SEIZURE OF IPHONE AND DOCUMENTS 11 Case No. 1:17-mc-00019-SKO _____________________________________/ 9 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE AND DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 12 13 14 15 16 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.”). 23 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)). 7 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. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 14 May 25, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 .

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?