Basey v. United States

Background

Kaleb Lee Basey filed a complaint under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), seeking the return or destruction of Yahoo emails that were seized under a warrant issued in the District of Alaska and later used in his criminal conviction there. He also sought declarations and orders preventing the government from using, disclosing, or relying on information from the emails.

Basey had previously pursued motions for the return of other seized property in the District of Alaska. That court eventually granted a later return-of-property motion under terms proposed by the government, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Ninth Circuit said it did not need to decide whether the property had been illegally seized because the property was no longer needed for evidentiary purposes.

Motions and Venue Analysis

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue and, alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Basey argued that venue was proper in the Northern District of California because the government obtained his Yahoo emails from Yahoo's address in Sunnyvale, California. The government argued that Basey was seeking destruction and declaratory relief rather than the return of property and that venue was otherwise improper.

The court concluded that venue was improper regardless of whether Rule 41(g)'s venue provision applies to post-conviction motions. If Rule 41(g) applies, the motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court found that the emails were seized in the District of Alaska, where the warrant was issued and the compact disc containing the emails was obtained. The warrant's reference to Yahoo's Sunnyvale headquarters did not establish that the seizure occurred in California; the warrant instead identified information associated with Basey's email address as the location to be searched.

The court also concluded that, if Rule 41(g)'s venue provision does not apply, the general venue statute for suits against the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), did not establish venue in California. The court stated that the Northern District was neither a place where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, a place where a substantial part of the property was situated, nor the district where Basey resided, as required by the statute's listed alternatives.

Rulings

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the United States' motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. Because dismissal on venue grounds was appropriate, the court did not reach the government's alternative argument that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court ordered the clerk to terminate the pending motions, enter judgment for the United States, and close the file.

The court separately granted Basey's motion for leave to file supplemental authority. It denied his motion for preliminary relief seeking a certificate of appealability that would have allowed him to appeal the denial of his separate sentence-challenge proceeding in the District of Alaska, which he had already appealed to the Ninth Circuit.