Jump to content


Photo

California Open Carry Lawsuit - Nichols v. Brown

Open Carry

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#91 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 12 December 2016 - 03:48 PM

I see it has been just over a month since my last update.

 

My petition for my California Open Carry appeal to be initially heard en banc is currently being proofread.  I had once thought that the petition was due before the Appellees filed their answering brief.  I don't know why exactly I thought that but my en banc petition must be filed by the due date of the Appellees answering brief, which is December 19th.  They could file their brief today but my petition would still not be due until next Monday.

 

Given that this Thursday, December 15, is Bill of Rights day, that seems like an auspicious day to file my petition. 

 

More at my December 12, 2016, Update at my Website.



#92 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 27 December 2016 - 09:54 PM

When my case was in the district court the magistrate and district court judges gave the state's attorney extra time to file which he did not ask for and allowed him to file a time barred supplemental motion for judgment on the pleadings over my objection and in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

Now that my case is on appeal the state's attorney failed to file his answering brief on time in violation of an ORDER setting the briefing schedule, a briefing schedule which he agreed to.  Instead, he filed a time-barred motion for an extension of time which I have objected to.  I have also asked for sanctions, which I would have been subject to had I failed to file my opening brief on time.

 

Time will tell whether or not the rules apply to both sides.

 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 20, 2016 – I filed my Appellant’s Opposition To Appellees’ Motion For Extension Of Time To File Brief And Request For Frap 31-2.3 Sanctions.

A party to a lawsuit who misses a deadline does so at his own peril.  Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris (the Appellees) were required to file their motion at least seven days in advance of the due date for filing their answering brief.  Instead, they filed their motion for an extension of time on a Friday afternoon knowing their answering brief was due the following Monday.  Moreover, the Appellees had already agreed to a schedule which the court signed off on via an ORDER.

I filed an opposition to their motion asking for an extension of time and I asked the Court to impose sanctions on Governor Brown, Attorney General Harris and their attorney for failing to file their answering brief on time.  You can read my opposition and request for sanctions by clicking on the link.

Appellant’s Opposition To Appellees’ Motion For Extension Of Time To File Brief And Request For Frap 31-2.3 Sanctions



#93 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 28 December 2016 - 07:05 AM

I like the brief but I never ever see the government being denied extensions, no matter how sloppy or deficient that their counsel is.

What would be the sanctions, should the court agree with you?

#94 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 28 December 2016 - 07:24 PM

The courts almost always grant extensions to the government because government lawyers are presumed to be juggling more cases than they can handle (which is an ethical violation but let's skip over that), very few (if any) support staff while most attorneys in private practice will take a few cases and they also have teams of paralegals and other support staff helping them. That doesn't apply in this case (except for the overworked government lawyer part). Not saying it's right, but the presumption of "overworked" goes to the government. The lack of paralegals and support staff also explains the deficiencies in briefs, yet the government will seize on a deficiency in a brief filed by opposing counsel. "Do as the court says, not as I do, otherwise I'll try to have your case tossed." It's definitely abused, as evidenced by the State of Illinois filing for extensions to delay CA7 lifting the stay on issuance of the mandate in Moore. Sanctions for filing a time-barred brief is....it probably won't be monetary....but should be to provide an incentive for them to keep their word and abide by the Rules. I've seen many cases in which one of the parties should have been sanctioned monetarily but wasn't because judges hate imposing monetary sanctions and will do so as a last resort or if the conduct is especially egregious. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#95 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 28 December 2016 - 08:14 PM

I like the brief but I never ever see the government being denied extensions, no matter how sloppy or deficient that their counsel is.

What would be the sanctions, should the court agree with you?

Judges are bureaucrats at their core and are quick to invoke the Federal court rules as being absolute.  Sometime in the last few years a successful party won a ~$150 million dollar judgment and then lost it because the lawyers did not file their paperwork on time or ask for an extension of time before the deadline to file their paperwork.  I did a Google search trying to find the particular case only to discover that there are a lot of lawyers out there who lost out on collecting their winning judgments for failing to file their paperwork on time,

 

The state's attorney could have filed a timely motion for an extension of time or he could have utilized his free 30 day extension and then file a timely motion 7 or more days before it expired for an extension of time.  By doing neither he is now time-barred from doing either.

 

Whatever sanctions are imposed are entirely up to the Court.  I have no say in what they are, all I can do is ask that sanctions be imposed.



#96 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 30 December 2016 - 02:02 PM

I always see judges here in the Central District of IL (and Northern, Southern Districts, along with Circuit Court of Appeals) allowing "do overs" for the state. The panel for Culp v. Madigan allowed the state to refile its oral argument paperwork because the attorney arguing the case (or his underling, whatever) left the line where the name of the attorney who will be arguing the case is supposed to go completely blank. Seen so many deficient filings, frivolous briefs, judges just say "Oh, you poor things. I'll let you fix that even though you have five attorneys of record and not one of them could file a brief on time after I gave you two extensions." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#97 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 31 December 2016 - 12:48 PM

Look at it another way. 2 sides of the same coin.

#98 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 18 January 2017 - 08:08 PM

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 18, 2017 - Without explanation, the 9th circuit court of appeals Appellate Commissioner granted the state's time-barred motion for a sixty day extension of time to file its Answering Brief (now due February 17th) and denied my request for sanctions.  And so the 9th circuit court of appeals is going to let the state's attorney violate the rules of the court of appeals just as the district court judge allowed the state's attorney to violate the Federal district court rules.

34 - Nichols v. Brown - ORDER

 

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 01/18/2017 at 10:57:27 AM PST and filed on 01/18/2017

Case Name: Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 14-55873
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner Appellees’ opposed late motion (Docket Entry No. [32]) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due February 17, 2017. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [33]) for sanctions is denied. Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [31]) will be addressed in a separate order. (Pro Mo) [10269637] (LL)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Mr. Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General
Charles Nichols
USDC, Los Angeles



#99 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 19 January 2017 - 10:04 AM

Not surprised at all. They will cover for any mistakes made by the state.

#100 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 18 February 2017 - 10:39 AM

https://www.mdshoote...?t=70625&page=4

 

The state's reply brief is posted. With CCW a non-issue due to Peruta, CA is trying to convince the court that there's a material difference between Moore and Nichols. (Keep in mind only rural areas of the state will issue open carry permits, LA County obviously isn't one).

So in a nutshell they are arguing that a total public carry ban is constitutional, although doing their best to mask it under an open carry ban only.



#101 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 01 March 2017 - 04:00 PM

It turns out that I did not need to use any of my free, one-time 30 day extension to file my Reply Brief.  My Reply Brief was filed just after midnight on March 1, 2017 and accepted as filed early this morning.

 

My Appeal is now fully briefed.

 

My petition for my appeal to be heard before an en banc eleven judge panel is still pending (filed 77 days ago) and likely will remain pending until there is a decision in the Baker v. Kealoha  and the Baker en banc petitions are decided.  It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that if Baker succeeds the decision will be reheard by an en banc panel.  

 

All of three briefs (Opening, Answering, Reply) as well as the Excerpts of Records to all three briefs are online at my website.

 

Due to the large size of these files, you probably won't be able to view them through a portable device.  You should download them and then view them locally.

 

Likewise with the motions and Amicus briefs filed by the three national anti-gun groups: Brady Center, LCAV and Everytown.

 

For more information go to the Status Page for my California Open Carry lawsuit at my website.

 

P.S. The Brief In Opposition to the Peruta cert petition suggested that SCOTUS wait for my case.  Here is a little something I wrote up about that.



#102 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 10 March 2017 - 04:11 AM

The NRA took a parting shot at my California Open Carry appeal in its Reply Brief filed in Peruta v. California.  According to the NRA my appeal “is littered with procedural irregularities and other deficiencies.”

 

What the NRA failed to mention is that it is the state’s attorney representing Governor Brown and Attorney General Becerra who made these mistakes. Which is why the state’s attorney asked in his brief that my appeal be sent back to the district court so that he can correct the mistakes he made the first time around. In my Reply Brief I opposed the remand for the obvious reasons that none is warranted under the law. The state was given ample opportunity to defend California’s Open Carry bans. There are no questions of fact for a jury to decide, all that remains in my California Open Carry appeal are pure questions of law.

 

Here is an article I wrote on why the Peruta v. California cert petition will be denied in two weeks.  http://newsblaze.com...petition_75414/



#103 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 03 December 2017 - 09:38 PM

ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDARED!  2018-02-15  9:00 am  Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr. – Charles Nichols appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a set of California state laws regulating the open carry of firearms in public places. [2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS]

 

Link to 9th circuit court of appeals calendar (my case is fourth on the list).



#104 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 04 December 2017 - 04:32 AM

Does the 9th Circuit provide live streaming of oral arguments?
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#105 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 04 December 2017 - 04:46 AM

Does the 9th Circuit provide live streaming of oral arguments?

Yes, at this link which is in turn linked to its YouTube channel.  Within 24 hours, typically later that day, a separate video of each oral argument is uploaded to the YouTube channel.



#106 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 04 December 2017 - 04:53 AM

Thank you.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#107 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:36 AM

2018-02-15 -- right?



#108 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 04 December 2017 - 07:23 AM

When will the 3 judge panel be announced?

#109 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:30 AM

When will the 3 judge panel be announced?

Week of oral arguments IIRC.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#110 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:51 PM

When will the 3 judge panel be announced?

The 3 judge panel will be announced on the Monday of the week prior to oral argument.  In my case that will be February 5th.

 

The panel of potential judges is nationwide.  All that the court rules require is that one of three judges on my panel be an active 9th circuit court of appeals judge.  In the wake of the congressional proposals to break up the 9th circuit court of appeals, many of the 3 judge panels have been comprised of judges from other circuits including district court judges.

 

Whether or not that improves my chances or diminishes them, I will leave to others to debate.



#111 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:52 PM

2018-02-15 -- right?

Right.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Open Carry

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users