Elofson v. Bivens et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING 80 PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO COMPEL AUTOPSY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/2/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 GREG STEVEN ELOFSON, Case No. 15-cv-05761-BLF Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 STEPHANIE BIVENS, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO COMPEL AUTOPSY [RE: ECF 80] 12 13 14 Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an order compelling the Pinal County, Arizona 15 Medical Examiner to perform an autopsy to determine the cause of death of Plaintiff’s father, Milo 16 Elofson. This Court lacks authority to issue the requested order. 17 “The validity of an order of a federal court depends upon that court’s having jurisdiction 18 over both the subject matter and the parties.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des 19 Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). It is unclear whether this Court would have 20 authority to over the subject matter – an autopsy – even if the county agency in question were 21 located within the Northern District of California. See Watson v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface 22 Transit Operating Authority, 487 F. Supp. 1273, 1277 (D.N.J. 1980) (“Just as the federal courts 23 have no jurisdiction to probate a will or administer an estate, or to grant divorces, alimony or 24 custody, so it appears that they have no subject-matter jurisdiction over the disinterment of dead 25 bodies or the conduct of autopsies.”) (internal citations omitted). 26 Moreover, the Pinal County, Arizona Medical Examiner is not located within this District, 27 and thus even if it were a party to this action – which it is not – it almost certainly lacks sufficient 28 minimum contacts with California to render it subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. See 1 Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (Personal jurisdiction proper only where 2 defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with forum state). 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 Dated: June 2, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 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?