Gann v. Saylor
3:15-cv-00264
D. Nev.Aug 20, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Joshua Gann (pro se) filed suit alleging defendants (Steven Saylor and Does I–X) wrongfully entered his recorded mining claims, removed ore and other property, recorded fraudulent documents, and threatened him. He seeks various state-law remedies and asserted federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
- Procedural posture: IFP application granted; Magistrate Judge Cobb screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The R&R evaluates each claim for plausibility and statute-of-limitations defects.
- Key factual windows: alleged forcible entry and threats in March 2009; theft of water tanks discovered February 2013; affidavit alleging removal of ore dated September 9, 2013; quiet-title judgment in favor of plaintiff’s company in August 2013.
- Court finds most asserted causes of action sound in Nevada law rather than federal mining law and applies state statutes of limitation to each claim.
- Result of screening: some claims dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, others allowed to proceed (with one false-title claim dismissed with leave to amend to show pre-suit statutory prerequisite).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of forcible-entry/forcible-detainer/treble-damage claims (NRS 40.230, 40.240, 40.170) | Saylor forcibly entered and detained Gann’s claims in March 2009; treble damages available | Implicit defense: statute of limitations applies | Dismissed with prejudice as barred by Nevada 3‑year limitations period |
| Claim under NRS 40.180 (damages for working mine/mining claim) | Ore was removed; damages and presumptive valuation available under statute | Implicit: merits/valuation disputes | Allowed to proceed (claim timely as to ore discovered/claimed in 2013) |
| Theft (NRS 205.0832) — multiple events | Theft of ore (discovered Sept 2013), theft of water tanks (Feb 2013), and alleged 2009 taking of claims | Statute-of-limitations challenge for older events | Theft claims for ore (Sept 2013) and water tanks (Feb 2013) proceed; 2009 theft claim dismissed with prejudice |
| False representation concerning title (NRS 205.395) | Defendants recorded fraudulent/ante‑dated documents about East Yellow Jacket #1 | Defendant implicit defense: procedural prerequisites and validity of recordings | Dismissed with leave to amend: plaintiff must allege compliance with pre‑suit written‑request prerequisite |
| IIED and assault (personal injuries) | Physical threats/forcible eviction in March 2009 caused severe emotional distress | Statute-of-limitations defense | Dismissed with prejudice as time‑barred (2‑year limitations) |
| Trespass to chattel and conversion | Personal property (ore, tanks, other chattels) was taken/converted; conversion continued through quiet‑title period | Statute-of-limitations and factual dispute over timing | Allowed to proceed to extent allegations concern conduct within 3 years prior to filing |
| Nuisance (NRS 40.140) | Defendants obstructed use/enjoyment of property | Statute-of-limitations and factual sufficiency | Allowed to proceed for conduct within 3 years before filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (in forma pauperis screening and liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir.) (§1915 screening standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual, not merely conclusory, allegations)
- U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir.) (requirements for affidavits supporting IFP status)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)