Mauwee, Sr. v. Palmer et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying Defendants' 61 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/29/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

_____________________________________
EUGENE A. MAUWEE, SR.,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

vs.
JACK PALMER et al.,

11

Defendants.

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

3:10-cv-00250-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
Plaintiff is a prisoner who has sued Defendants in pro se in this Court pursuant to 42

13
14

U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth

15

Amendment Due Process rights based on the confiscation and destruction of a religious artifact

16

(an eagle talon). Defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.

17

The magistrate judge recommended: (1) the Court grant the motion as to the Free Exercise claim

18

because Plaintiff filed the Complaint more than two years after discovering the relevant injury,

19

i.e., the confiscation of the talon; and (2) the Court deny the motion as to the Due Process claim

20

because Plaintiff filed the Complaint less than two years after discovering the relevant injury,

21

i.e., the destruction of the talon. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

22

in full.

23
24
1 of 2

Defendants have asked the Court to reconsider as to the Due Process claim because the

1
2

Court adopted the R&R before the time had run for Defendant to file objections thereto. That is,

3

the Court adopted the R&R on January 15, 2014 but had previously granted Defendants’ motion

4

to extend time to object until January 16, 2014. The Court has now considered the objections

5

included in the motion and declines to reconsider. Defendants argue that there cannot be two

6

different dates of injury with respect to the statute of limitations. The Court disagrees. It is true

7

that Plaintiff knew of the confiscation of his talon more than two years before he filed the present

8

action, but he did not know of its destruction until much later. Plaintiff may therefore bring his

9

Due Process claim seeking damages based purely on the destruction of the talon, but not on the

10

mere fact of its confiscation. Property law is a “bundle of sticks,” and Plaintiff’s property

11

interest in immediate possession of the talon is distinct from his property interest in ownership of

12

the talon generally. Plaintiff’s ownership interest in the talon—Plaintiff argues that he should

13

have been able to have it sent to another for safekeeping—is independently cognizable. His

14

damages must be limited, accordingly, but the Court cannot say that Plaintiff was on notice of

15

the loss of all ownership rights in the talon whatsoever upon its confiscation. Defendants may,

16

however, file a successive motion for summary judgment based on the Hudson and Paratt line of

17

cases.
CONCLUSION

18
19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 61) is DENIED.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Datedthis 17th day ofof September, 2014.
Dated this 29th day September, 2014.

22
23
24

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
2 of 2