United States v. Bundy, 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-NJK

Ryan W. Payne was indicted in the District of Nevada (Superseding Indictment) for conduct arising from an April 12, 2014 confrontation with BLM officers; he was also charged in a separate Superseding Indictment in the District of Oregon related to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation.
Payne moved to dismiss the Nevada case with prejudice, arguing the government’s simultaneous prosecutions in Oregon and Nevada forced him to choose between exercising constitutional rights in one forum or the other.
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen recommended denial of Payne’s Motion to Dismiss; Payne filed timely objections to that Report and Recommendation.
The district court reviewed the objections de novo, considered arguments about speedy trial, effective assistance of counsel, and due process, and noted Payne had sought mandamus relief from the Ninth Circuit (which declined relief).
The court found Payne’s claims speculative, that the Speedy Trial Act exclusions were properly applied, and that Payne failed to show prejudice for an ineffective-assistance or due-process violation.
The court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, denied Payne’s Motion to Dismiss, and denied Ammon Bundy’s untimely motion to join Payne’s objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether simultaneous prosecutions in two districts warrant dismissal with prejudice	Government: prosecutions are permissible and statutory exclusions and case management are proper	Payne: dual prosecutions force choice between constitutional rights (speedy trial, counsel, due process) and thus require dismissal	Denied — no dismissal; dual prosecutions alone insufficient; objections overruled
Whether Speedy Trial Act was violated by continuances and case management	Government: continuances were justified, exclusions under §3161(h) apply	Payne: continuances and complexity designation violated his speedy trial rights	Denied — court found proper factual findings and that ends-of-justice continuances were appropriate
Whether simultaneous cases caused ineffective assistance of counsel	Government: distance/dual cases do not presumptively show ineffective assistance without prejudice	Payne: counsel unable to effectively represent him across two forums, causing prejudice	Denied — court found speculation, not proof of Strickland prejudice
Whether dual prosecutions violated due process	Government: no due process violation shown by facts	Payne: evidence/witnesses left idle and litigation impaired, violating due process	Denied — no concrete factual showing of prejudice or unfairness

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
United States v. Lucas, 873 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1989) (defendant must show actual or constructive denial of counsel; mere distance does not suffice without prejudice)
United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997) (approval of ends-of-justice continuances under the Speedy Trial Act requires specific findings)