Harvey
United States v. Harvey
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*14 MEMORANDUM **
William E. Harvey appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion, under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the return of property seized pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm in part and vacate in part.
I
Mr. Harvey contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order in this action because the Government failed to demonstrate where the seized property is located. He has failed to cite any authority to support this proposition. The Supreme Court has instructed that “it is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor, clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.” FW/ PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 , 110 S.Ct. 596 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, we have ruled previously that a district court has jurisdiction over a Rule 41(g) motion even if the property seized no longer exists because the Government destroyed it. United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir.1987).