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

Filing 47

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 05/26/16 ORDERING that the matter is continued STAYED until 08/29/16; on or before 08/29/16, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Benson, A)

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
2 KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: [phone]
1

5

Attorneys for the United States

6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

2:11-CV-01902-JAM-EFB
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF STAY OF
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER

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,

DATE: N/A
TIME: N/A
COURTROOM: N/A

17

Defendant.
18
19

The United States of America and David Johns, Mary Johns, and Major Amos Nilson and Lucy

20

H. Nilson, Trustees of the Nilson Family Revocable Trust (hereafter referred to collectively as

21

"claimants") submit the following Request for Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Proposed

22

Order.

23

This matter was previously stayed on September 15, 2011, November 28, 2011, February 1, 2012,

24

May 1, 2012, August 1, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 30, 2013, April 30, 2013, July 30, 2013,

25

October 30, 2013, March 27, 2014, September 8, 2014, March 4, 2015, September 22, 2015, December

26

28, 2015, and February 26, 2016, based on the on-going criminal investigation into marijuana cultivation

27

at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California (hereafter "defendant property"). To date, several

28

individuals have been charged with federal criminal crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the
1

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order

1

defendant property, Case Nos. 2:11-CR-00275-JAM and 2:11-CR-00276-JAM; but neither David Johns

2

nor Mary Johns, the record owners of the defendant property, have been charged with any criminal

3

offense by state, local, or federal authorities.
1.

4

Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the defendant property. Claimants David Johns,

5

Mary Johns, Major Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have not yet filed their Answers and will not be

6

required to do so until the stay contemplated by this stipulation expires.
2.

7
8

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.

9

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

10

criminal charges relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property. Nevertheless, the United

11

States intends to depose claimants David and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant

12

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

13

marijuana grow at the defendant property. If discovery proceeds at this time, claimants will be placed in

14

the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and

15

losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment

16

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

17

Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the

18

claims they filed with this court.
4.

19

In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved with this

20

investigation, including but not limited to the agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the

21

Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would

22

adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged underlying criminal

23

conduct.
5.

24

The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time has potential adverse

25

effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimants' ability to prove

26

their claim to the property and to assert any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly

27

request that the matter be stayed until August 29, 2016, in accordance with the terms of this stipulation.

28

///
2

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order

1

At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal investigation, if any, and will

2

advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.

3

Dated: 5/24/16

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

4

By:

5
6

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

7

Dated: 5/24/16

/s/ Brenda Grantland
BRENDA GRANTLAND
Attorney for claimants
David Johns and Mary Johns
(Signature authorized by email)

Dated: 5/26/16

8

/s/ Douglas A. MacDonald
DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD
Attorney for claimants Major
Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson
(Signature authorized by email)

9
10
11
12
13
14

ORDER

15
16

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2),

17

and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until August 29, 2016. On or before August 29, 2016, the parties will advise the

18

court whether a further stay is necessary.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/26/2016

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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order