USA v. Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/1/2012 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until 8/1/2012. On or before 8/1/2012, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Zignago, K.)

1

4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]

5

Attorneys for the United States

2
3

6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9445
FRUITRIDGE ROAD, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
APN NOS: 063-0060-045 AND
063-0060-046 INCLUDING ALL
APPURTENANCES AND
IMPROVEMENTS THERETO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-CV-01902-JAM-DAD
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
OF STAY OF FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AND
ORDER
DATE: N/A
TIME: N/A
COURTROOM: N/A

19
20

The United States of America and David Johns, Mary Johns, and Major

21

Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson, Trustees of the Nilson Family Revocable Trust

22

(hereafter referred to collectively as "claimants") submit the following Request for

23

Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Proposed Order.

24

This matter was previously stayed on September 15, 2011, November 28,

25

2011, and February 1, 2012, based on the on-going criminal investigation into

26

marijuana cultivation at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California (hereafter

27

"defendant property"). To date, several individuals have been charged with federal

28

criminal crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the defendant property, Case
1

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed Order

1

Nos. 2:11-CR-00275-JAM-DAD and 2:11-CR-00276-JAM-DAD; but neither David

2

Johns nor Mary Johns, the record owners of the defendant property, have been

3

charged with any criminal offense by state, local, or federal authorities.

4

1.

Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the defendant property.

5

Claimants David Johns, Mary Johns, Major Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have

6

not yet filed their Answers and will not be required to do so until the stay

7

contemplated by this stipulation expires.

8
9
10
11

2.

The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and

21 U.S.C. § 881(i). The United States contends that the defendant property was
used to facilitate the cultivation of marijuana.
3.

It is the United States’ position that the statute of limitations has not

12

expired on potential criminal charges relating to the marijuana grow at the

13

defendant property. Nevertheless, the United States intends to depose claimants

14

David and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant property, as well

15

as their knowledge and participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including

16

the marijuana grow at the defendant property. If discovery proceeds at this time,

17

claimants will be placed in the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth

18

Amendment rights against self-incrimination and losing the ability to pursue their

19

claims to the defendant property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and

20

submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. If they invoke

21

their Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to

22

explore the factual basis for the claims they filed with this court.

23

4.

In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents

24

involved with this investigation, including but not limited to the agents with the

25

Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. Allowing

26

depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would adversely affect the

27

ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged underlying criminal

28

conduct.
2

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed Order

1

5.

The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time

2

has potential adverse effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct

3

and/or upon the claimants' ability to prove their claim to the property and to assert

4

any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that these

5

matters be stayed until August 1, 2012, in accordance with the terms of this

6

stipulation. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the

7

criminal investigation, if any, and will advise the court whether a further stay is

8

necessary.

9

Dated: 4/30/12

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

10
11

By:

12

/s/ Kevin C. Khasigian
KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

13
14

Dated: 4-25-2012

/s/ Brenda Grantland
BRENDA GRANTLAND
Attorney for claimants
David Johns and Mary Johns

Dated: 4/26/2012

/s/ Douglas A. MacDonald
DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD
Attorney for claimants Major
Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson
(Signatures retained by attorney)

15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER

21
22

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

23

§§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until August 1, 2012. On or before

24

August 1, 2012, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is

25

necessary.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/1/2012

/s/ John A. Mendez
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge

28
3

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Proposed Order