Dick v. Schaeffer et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 13 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 KWASSUH WESLEY GLENN DICK, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 WILLIAM E. SCHAEFFER et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:16-cv-00584-RCJ-WGC ORDER Plaintiff Kwassuh Dick sued the Austin Township Justice Court (“the ATJC”) and Justice 15 of the Peace William Schaeffer in pro se in this Court. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged that 16 unidentified Lander County Sheriff’s Office deputies interfered with his hunting activities in 17 2012 in violation of the Treaty with the Snake (Northern Paiute) of 1865. Specifically, the 18 deputies arrested him on June 7, 2012 for having killed three antelope. Plaintiff spent four days 19 in the Lander County Jail without being brought before a judge. The ATJC continued his trial to 20 July 2013 at his request. Plaintiff requested that the “Winnemucca Traditional Tribal Court” 21 hear his case. That purported court accepted his request and purported to rule in his favor. 22 Nevertheless, the ATJC proceeded in some fashion in October 2013 (the allegations are largely 23 illegible). In Count II, Plaintiff alleged “judicial misconduct” by Justice Schaeffer for having 24 ignored the purported acquittal in the tribal court. 25 Plaintiff filed an emergency motion asking the Court to direct the U.S. Marshals Office to 1 take him into “protective custody” and transport him to his home. In the motion, Plaintiff noted 2 that the ATJC had dismissed the charges against him when the state failed to produce its 3 witnesses at the time scheduled for trial, but Plaintiff had been arrested on October 24, 2016 by 4 Fallon Paiute–Shoshone Tribal Police based on a contempt of court warrant issued by the ATJC. 5 The Court denied the motion because it was not signed by Plaintiff but by “Benny Mills, Elder 6 Traditional Speaker,” who was not an attorney admitted before the Court, and even if the motion 7 had been signed by Plaintiff or an attorney, Plaintiff had made no showing that the order of 8 contempt upon which the arrest was made was contrary to federal law and had not even alleged 9 the basis of the order of contempt. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Count I 10 should not be dismissed under the statute of limitations and why the entire Complaint should not 11 be dismissed based on judicial immunity. In his response, Plaintiff made no argument as to 12 either issue. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Count 1 was time-barred and that Defendants 13 were entitled to judicial immunity against all claims. 14 Over 28 days later, Plaintiff filed the present “Judicial Notice,” which the Clerk has 15 entered into the docket as a motion to reconsider. The notice appears to concern previous 16 arguments made against the jurisdiction of the ATJC, but it identifies no basis for relief under 17 Rule 60. 18 CONCLUSION 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: This 24th day April, 2017. Dated this 25th day of of May, 2017. 22 23 24 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 25 Page 2 of 2

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?