USA V. STEPHEN DEAN, No. 14-56742 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 14-56742 D.C. No. 5:14-cv-01240-VAP-SP v. MEMORANDUM* STEPHEN DEAN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 7, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Stephen Dean appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Under Rule 41(g), a district court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant a motion for the return of property by a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). Where, as here, there are no criminal proceedings pending against the movant, “a district court must exercise caution and restraint before assuming jurisdiction.” Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court reviews a district court’s decision whether to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) for an abuse of discretion. Id. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise equitable jurisdiction over Dean’s motion. Dean did not establish that the four Ramsden factors weighed in his favor, as required for the district court to assume jurisdiction over a pre-indictment Rule 41(g) motion. We AFFIRM the district court’s order without prejudice to Dean renewing his Rule 41(g) motion on the basis that nearly three years have passed since the government seized the property in question.1 1 Dean’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.