v. Wilson

Filing 149

ORDERED that the Motions (## 141 , 148 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/9/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. DALTON WILSON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:09-cv-00166-RCJ-WGC ORDER 12 13 Defendant Dalton Wilson owned 80 acres of land in Lander County, Nevada. When 14 Plaintiff the United States discovered that Defendant had built structures on adjacent federal 15 land, it notified him that he was trespassing and asked him to remove the structures but offered in 16 the alternative to sell him the adjacent land. Defendant neither purchased the adjacent land nor 17 removed the structures, and when he lost his own 80 acres to foreclosure in 2005, he moved into 18 one or more of the structures on the federal land. In a 2008 criminal trespass case, Judge 19 Sandoval found Defendant not guilty because of the doubt over ownership of the land created by 20 Lander County’s suit against the United States filed the day before. Judge Sandoval later 21 dismissed Lander County’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when Lander County 22 confirmed it did not seek to quiet title to the land. Indeed, Lander County had previously 23 quitclaimed the land to the United States. 24 1 of 3 In the present case, the United States sued Wilson for civil trespass in 2009, seeking 1 2 damages and ejectment. In 2009, Judge Reed granted Plaintiff summary judgment on liability 3 and entered a permanent injunction, leaving damages to a jury. When Plaintiff later withdrew its 4 claim for damages, Judge Reed entered judgment. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. 5 Defendant has asked the Court to relive him from the “void” Judgment under Rule 6 60(b)(4). Defendant identifies no circumstances that could cause the Court to find the Judgment 7 to be void. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent both a civil and criminal action based 8 on the same acts unless the civil action is in substance punitive, which is plainly not the case as 9 to a common law trespass claim. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997). Nor does the 10 doctrine of res judicata prevent a finding of civil trespass after an acquittal as to a criminal 11 trespass charge. Even assuming the elements of the two claims are the same, a criminal acquittal 12 only means that it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a trespass occurred. But 13 unless a judge or jury has so found via special verdict, an acquittal is not a determination that a 14 trespass did not occur, but only a determination that it did not occur beyond a reasonable doubt. 15 It remains logically possible after a general acquittal that a trespass occurred by a preponderance 16 of the evidence. So long as the civil claim need only be proved to a lesser degree of certainty 17 than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a finding of civil trespass is not inconsistent with an acquittal 18 as to criminal trespass. In any case, these arguments were previously available to Defendant, and 19 to the extent he raised them, the Court of Appeals has already rejected them. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 2 of 3 CONCLUSION 1 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions (ECF Nos. 141, 148) are DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated this 9th day November, 2015. Dated this 3rd day of of November, 2015. 5 6 7 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?