Prosecutors in NV get green light to appeal dismissal of Cliven Bundy standoff case

Nevada standoff trial

Cliven Bundy walks out of Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse a free man with his wife Carol, on Jan. 8, 2018, after a federal judge dismissed his case with prejudice in the Bunkerville standoff.

Federal prosecutors said they plan to appeal the dismissal of charges in the standoff case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and a fourth man but have asked for another delay to file their opening brief with the appellate court.

“Undersigned counsel advises the court and the defendants that the review process is complete and the solicitor general has authorized the government’s appeal,’’ Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth O. White wrote to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Wednesday, about a year after the case was thrown out.

White was granted two earlier extensions to file the government’s brief. She now has requested a third, asking for 14 more days. She wrote that the government had a draft of a brief that was “nearly complete’’ and could be filed by Feb. 6.

Cliven Bundy’s lawyer, Larry Klayman, had urged the court not to allow any further delay, calling the government’s appeal a “Hail Mary’’ hope that the court will “exonerate’’ the government’s “gross prosecutorial and criminal misconduct to save their careers.’’

On Jan. 8, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro threw out criminal charges against Cliven Bundy, his two sons and Ryan Payne in their 2014 standoff with federal agents, citing “flagrant misconduct” by prosecutors and the FBI in not disclosing evidence before and during trial.

In July, Navarro rejected prosecutors' request to reconsider her dismissal with prejudice.

Navarro dismissed prosecutors’ contention that the dismissal was "unjust'' or that she should have ordered a less severe sanction for their failure to share evidence that could assist the defense as required by the 1963 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland.

Navarro had found prosecutors engaged in a "deliberate attempt to mislead'' and made several misrepresentations to both the defense and the court about evidence related to a surveillance camera and snipers outside the Bundy ranch in early April 2014, as well as threat assessments made in the case.

The senior Bundy, sons Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy and Payne, a militia leader from Montana, had been indicted on federal conspiracy and other allegations, accused of rallying militia members and armed supporters to stop federal officers from impounding Bundy cattle near Bunkerville. Government authorities were acting on a court order filed after Cliven Bundy failed to pay grazing fees and fines for two decades. The outnumbered federal contingent retreated and halted the cattle roundup on April 12, 2014.

“It’s outrageous that the Bundys haven’t been brought to justice,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “They organized an armed mob to seize public lands and threaten federal officers who were just doing their jobs. Cliven Bundy and his sons need to be punished for what they’ve done and we’re hoping an appeals court sees it that way.”

In October, Ryan Bundy, one of the leaders of the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against current and former heads of the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI over his prosecution in the Nevada standoff.

Ryan Bundy argued that he was subjected to "malicious prosecution'' as retaliation for protecting the Bundy ranch.

In a separate but related case, the Center for Biological Diversity is asking a judge in Nevada to dismiss a civil lawsuit brought by Cliven Bundy in county court in Las Vegas seeking state control of federal land, arguing his claims lack merit and have been rejected numerous times already.

Bundy "seeks to re-litigate settled law because he wishes to continue illegal livestock grazing on federal public lands. Bundy’s wrongful effort was rejected in 1998, and many times since then, and should be rejected once more by this Court,'' attorneys for the Center for Biological Diversity wrote.

"In 1998, 2013, and 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada rejected Bundy’s legal theories, time and again explaining that the federal public lands in Nevada are indeed the property of the United States,'' Attorney Justin Augustine wrote.

-- Maxine Bernstein

Email at mbernstein@oregonian.com

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian

Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.