United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, Chief Judge.
before the Court is pro se Defendant Ryan C. Bundy's
(“Defendant's”) Challenge to Jurisdiction
(ECF No. 1536), which the Court construes as a Motion to
Reconsider the Court's prior Order (ECF No.
1353) regarding jurisdiction. The Government
filed a Response (ECF No. 1570), and Defendant filed two
Replies (ECF Nos. 1651, 1652).
March 2, 2016, a federal grand jury sitting in the District
of Nevada returned a Superseding Indictment charging
Defendant and eighteen other co-defendants with sixteen
counts related to a confrontation occurring on April 12,
2014, with Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”)
Officers in Bunkerville, Nevada. (ECF No. 27).
October 17, 2016, co-defendant Cliven Bundy (“C.
Bundy”) filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that
the federal government does not own the land in question,
“any activity of Federal Agents on [the land in
question] during the time period described within the
indictments was illegal, unlawful, and was an aggressive
trespass onto lands owned by the people of Nevada.”
(Mot. to Dismiss 2:14-19, ECF No. 892). After full briefing
and a hearing, Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen filed a Report
and Recommendation rejecting Defendant's arguments and
recommending denial of the motion. (R. & R. 11:24-12:2,
18:14-26, ECF No. 1173). C. Bundy objected to the Report and
Recommendation (Obj., ECF No. 1226), and the Court performed
a de novo review of C. Bundy's Motion to Dismiss
before accepting and adopting Judge Leen's Report and
Recommendation in full. (Order, ECF No. 1353). The Court,
like Judge Leen, found that C. Bundy's arguments were
foreclosed by case law, including C. Bundy's prior
related civil cases, and the Court had jurisdiction over the
land in question because it is owned by the federal
government. (Id. 3:25-5:17).
instant motion, Defendant challenges the Court's
jurisdiction once again. He asserts that the prior Order
“fail[s] to mention . . . that the fourth paragraph of
Section 4 of the Nevada Enabling Act . . . presents the clear
intention of Congress to reserve right and title, i.e.
ownership, of the unnappropriated [sic] public lands.”
(Mot. Reconsider at 11, ECF No. 1536). The Court understands
this assertion, along with the rest of Defendant's
motion, to argue that contrary to the Court's prior
Order, the land is not property of the United States.
(See also Id. at 8) (“it cannot be proved by
the explicit language of the Constitution for the United
States, that property within a State of the union may be
possessed by the federal government”).
motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court
is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Court has reviewed the prior Order and the arguments
presented by Defendant in his motion and has not found any
reason to overturn this Court's previous Order. The Court
finds neither clear error nor manifest injustice in the
reasoning of its previous Order. Additionally, Defendant
cites no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in
controlling law. As then-District Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson
originally determined in C. Bundy's civil case in 1998,
which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, the land in question
belongs to the United States, and federal courts have proper
jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. (See Order,
United States v. Bundy, Case No.
2:98-cv-0531-JBR-RJJ, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev.
Nov. 3, 1998), ECF No. 19, affd by 178 F.3d 1301
(9th Cir. 1999)). Therefore, the Court denies Defendant's
Motion to Reconsider.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's
Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 1536) is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
strike the document currently filed as Defendant's second
reply (ECF No. 1652).
 Defendant refers to this Order in a
footnote on page 11 of his filing.
 This Motion is signed by pro se
co-defendant Todd Engel, along with co-defendants Ammon
Bundy, Ryan W. Payne, Cliven Bundy, and Pete Santilli. (Mot.
Reconsider at 25, ECF No. 1536). To the extent that these
co-defendants are seeking to jointly file Defendant's
motion, the Court grants the request by Engel, but denies the
request by the other four parties who are all represented by
counsel. Parties who are represented by counsel “may
not personally file a document with the court; [rather, ] all
filings must thereafter be made by the attorney.” (D.
Nev. LR IA 11-6).
 Defendant is only entitled to one
reply. The first reply is the only one signed by Defendant.
Accordingly, the Court will consider Defendant's first
reply (ECF No. 1651) as the operative reply and will instruct
the Clerk of Court to ...