v. Wilson

Filing 152

ORDER denying Defendant's 150 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

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 2

1

In the present case, the United States sued Wilson for civil trespass in 2009, seeking

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 recently asked the Court to relive him from the Judgment under Rule 60(b)(4).

6

The Court denied the motion because Defendant identified no circumstances that could cause the

7

Court to find the Judgment to be void. The Court rejected Defendant’s double jeopardy

8

argument because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent both a civil and criminal action

9

based on the same acts unless the civil action is in substance punitive, which is plainly not the

10

case as to a common law trespass claim. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997). The

11

Court also rejected Defendant’s claim preclusion argument because the doctrine of res judicata

12

does not prevent a finding of civil trespass after an acquittal as to a criminal trespass charge. The

13

Court also noted that the arguments were previously available to Defendant, and to the extent he

14

had raised them, the Court of Appeals had already rejected them.

15

Defendant has asked the Court to clarify not its recent order but rather the intent of

16

Congress under § 2 of the Homestead Act of 1862. The Court cannot issue an advisory opinion,

17

however. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968).
CONCLUSION

18
19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 150) is DENIED.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

12th day of February, 2016.
Dated this 5th day of February, 2016.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

24
2 of 2