Articles

11-10-2017 – The End of California Concealed Carry

10-15-2017 – Governor Brown Signs Bill Allowing Guns Inside of Gun-Free School Zones

10-12-2017 – Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Arms? 9th Circuit to Decide in 2018

9-12-2017 – NRA Open Carry Lawsuit Opposes Open Carry

9-3-2017 – Supreme Court Long Conference on September 25, 2017

8-14-2017 – A Declaration That Open Carry Is the Right

7-28-2017 – Transcript Released in NRA’s Fake Open Carry Lawsuit

7-24-2017 – 50th Anniversary of California’s Loaded Open Carry Ban

7-12-2017 – Can we Save Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

6-27-2017 – Supreme Court Decides to Wait for Another Second Amendment Case

6/15/2017 – The Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly

6/6/2017 – NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case

6/2/2017 – The NRA Lost Another Second Amendment Appeal Today

5/29/2017 – Lead Plaintiff in Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal says Courts are Corrupt

5/23/2017 – Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

5/20/2017 – Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court

5/03/2017 – Did the NRA Take a Dive in its Fake Open Carry Lawsuit?

5/01/2017 – Supreme Court Again Silent on Second Amendment

04/22/2017 – Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

04/14/2017 – Federal Judge Upholds Nonexistent Gun Ban

04/12/2017 – Concealed Carry, Incest, Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

04/05/2017 – Justice Neil Gorsuch and the Second Amendment

3/29/2017 – The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames

3/28/2017 – Federal Judge Tells NRA to Put Up or Shut Up in Open Carry Lawsuit

3/22/2017 – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Finally Recognizes the Second Amendment

3/13/2017 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by the 9th Circuit

3/10/2017 – US Supreme Court to Decide Concealed Carry Petition in Two Weeks

3/5/2017 – The Florida Supreme Court Just Handed The US Supreme Court a Second Amendment Case It Can’t Refuse

2/23/2017 – California Asks Supreme Court to Wait For Nichols v. Brown Open Carry Appeal

2/15/2017 – NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 – President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 – NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 – NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 – National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 – What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 – The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 – A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 – Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 – Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 – Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 – The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 – The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 – There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 – Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 – God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 – NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 – Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 – NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 – Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 – Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 – What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 – Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 – Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 – The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 – Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 – California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 – Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 – Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? –

4/6/2016 – Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 – Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 – Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 – How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 – The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 – The Second Amendment – Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 – Why California’s Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 – Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 – The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 – Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 – Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 – HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer – Inquire Within

11/9/2015 – The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 – Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 – National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 – The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 – Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 – Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 – The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 – State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 – The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 – Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 – NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 – Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 – Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 – Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 – The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 – Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 – An Open Letter to the Orange County Register’s Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 – Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 – Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 – The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 – Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 – California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 – California Concealed Carry Permits – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 – It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 – Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 – District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 – California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 – Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 – The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 – Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 – The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 – US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 – Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 – The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 – NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 – NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please
donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your
right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click
here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit
or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)


GoFundMe PayPal

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

Piryx

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

BitCoins 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit - Nichols v. Brown 14-55873 - June 20, 2017 and Later

Share

On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February.

On October 13th, the state’s attorney filed this letter with the Clerk of the court stating that he does not have any “unavoidable” conflicts but prefers that oral argument take place in February or March of 2018.

If and when oral argument is scheduled it will appear on the Court calendar 10 weeks before the oral argument date.

 On April 6, 2017, the state’s attorney filed a letter with the Court conceding that I have legal standing to pursue my claims on appeal and that I have properly framed my case.

This is a significant concession by the State.  The State’s concession means that the court of appeals is left to decide pure questions of law.

Which means no remand.  

The court of appeals will have to issue a decision in my appeal.


My Original Status Page reached a length limit.

This is the new page for updates from June 20, 2017, and onward.

For updates prior to June 20, 2017, click here.


I have created a GoFundMe page.

Donations are not tax deductible but they are greatly appreciated.

 

My Appeal is now fully briefed!

(which means it can be assigned to a panel of judges for a decision at any time, if it hasn’t already been assigned) 

 My Appellant Opening Brief was filed on November 9, 2016.

Appellees Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s answering brief was filed on February 17, 2017.  

My Reply Brief was filed on March 1, 2017 – 267 days ago!  

The Stay of My Appeal is Lifted!

My Opening Brief is Filed!

The State’s Answering Brief is Filed!

My Reply Brief is Filed!

The California Open Carry Appeal is now Fully Briefed and Waiting for a Decision!




On June 9, 2016, an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public.

That decision leaves my lawsuit challenging California’s Open Carry bans as the last carry case standing here in the 9th Circuit as I am the only one who has squarely raised a pure Open Carry challenge.

 

Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

Nichols v. Brown

Appeal No.: 14-55873

Please Donate:

Lawsuits cost money, mine is no exception. Please Donate.

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/oQHhxxyh/CaliforniaRightToCarry ->  Donate via Visa/MC/AMEX/e-Check
http://tinyurl.com/PC12031Lawsuit -> Donate via Paypal/Visa/MC/AMEX/e-Check

 

Bitcoins -> 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz

What Does my California Open Carry Lawsuit Seek to Achieve?

The simple answer is my lawsuit seeks to strike down California’s bans on the carrying of firearms openly for the purpose of self-defense:

  1.  In the curtilage of our homes (which for nearly everyone in the state means all of our residential property).

  2.  In and/on our motor vehicles including in and/or on any attached camper or trailer regardless of whether or not they are used as a residence.

  3.  In non-sensitive public places.

To this end my lawsuit seeks, at a minimum, a permanent injunction against California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public as well as a permanent injunction against California’s two, recently enacted, bans on openly carrying unloaded firearms in public.  My lawsuit also contains an alternate challenge to the population and other restrictions on the issuance of licenses to openly carry loaded handguns.  A challenge conditional on IF the court upholds California’s two CCW laws.  My position is that the Open Carry right cannot be conditioned on a government issued permission slip.  Given that the en banc Peruta decision held that there is no right to carry a concealed handgun in public, under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals current case law, both CCW laws should be struck down.  Should the court of appeals contrive some reason not to strike them down then my lawsuit demands that unrestricted handgun Open Carry licenses be granted with no qualification restrictions other than the person being issued the license is not prohibited under Federal or California law from possessing a firearm.

PLEASE NOTE:  If a lawsuit uses the right “magic words” (which mine does) then the lawsuit is not narrowly limited to seeking injunctions against certain laws.  Lawsuits are bound by what is known as “The Four Corners of a Complaint.”  Any law which infringes on our Second Amendment right in any of the three places I listed above falls within the four corners of my complaint and that includes California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.  Although I did not seek an injunction against the prohibition on carrying handguns within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school (California’s GFSZ does not prohibit long guns) I did ask for shall-issue handgun Open Carry licenses.  Moreover, I asked for declaratory relief in all non-sensitive public places which, if granted, can easily prohibit the state from prosecuting people for openly carrying handguns in additions to long guns within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school.  The current restrictions and prohibitions on the possession of firearms in schools, on school grounds and in government buildings will remain unaffected should I win.

If California adds to, or renames, or creates a new law infringing on our right to openly carry a firearm before my lawsuit is finished, that new law falls within the scope of this lawsuit. 

My lawsuit does not seek concealed carry in any shape or form. Similarly, it does not challenge any law “regulating” the carriage of firearms in schools or government buildings.

My lawsuit does not challenge any Federal law. I don’t see the current Congress or President enacting a Federal Open Carry ban but if they did then that would require a new Complaint in a new lawsuit.

Click
here to read a copy of the
lawsuit

Click
here to read a copy of Attorney General Harris’s
Answer to my lawsuit

NOTE:  The following links point to large pdf files.  If you are using a portable device then you are unlikely to be able to view them online.  Instead of trying to view them online, download them to your local desktop and view them locally.


This Appeal is Now Fully Briefed!

Opening Brief & En Banc Petition

26-1 – Appellant’s Opening Brief – 111 pages – Due November 17, 2016.  Filed November 9, 2016.
26-2 – Addendum – 164 pages – Due November 17, 2016.  Filed November 9, 2016.

Excerpts of Record in two volumes for a total of – 298 pages
27-1 – Excerpts of Record – Volume 1 – 149 pages – Due November 17, 2016.  Filed November 9, 2016.
27-2 – Excerpts of Record – Volume 2 – 149 pages – Due November 17, 2016.  Filed November 9, 2016.

31 – Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al No.: 14-55873 – Petition for Appeal to be Heard Initially En Banc FRAP 35-1 – Filed – PACER – 68 pages – Filed December 14, 2016.  

 

State of California’s Answering Brief

32 – Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris’s Motion to Extend Time to File Answering Brief Filed December 16, 2016.  Granted without explanation.

33 – Appellant’s Opposition To Appellees’ Motion For Extension Of Time To File Brief And Request For Frap 31-2.3 Sanctions – 12 pages – Filed December 20, 2016.  Denied without explanation.

35 – Nichols v. Brown – Appellees Supplemental Excerpt of Records – 277 pages – Filed on February 16, 2017.

36 – Appellees Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Attorney General Xavier Becerra,- Answering Brief and Addendum – 363 pages – was due December 19, 2016.  It is now due February 17, 2017.  Filed on February 17, 2017.

 

Three Amicus Briefs Filed in Opposition to Open Carry – None Filed in Support of Open Carry

41 – Corrected Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Filed on February 24, 2017.

42 – Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Everytown for Gun Safety – Filed on February 24, 2017.

44 – Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Filed on February 24, 2017.

53 – ORDER referring Amicus motions to panel of judges – Filed March 6, 2017.

 

Reply Brief

48 – Plaintiff Appellant Nichols’ Supplemental Excerpts of Record – 14-55873 – 67 pages – Due April 3, 2017.  Filed March 1, 2017.

49 – Plaintiff Appellant Nichols’ Reply Brief – 14-55873 – 44 pages – Due April 3, 2017.  Filed March 1, 2017.

 

My FRAP Rule 28(j) Letters

51 – Nichols’ FRAP 28j to Willis et al v. City of Fresno et al No 14-16560 – 9th Cir. March 1 – 2017 – Filed March 2, 2017.

58 – Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha et FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017.

59 – Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017.

60 – Flanagan et al v Harris et al FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017.

61- WISCONSIN CARRY INC. v City of Madison FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017.

65 – Pinner v. Indiana FRAP 28j letter – Filed May 15, 2017.

66 – Keller v. Keller ND Supreme Court 2017 ND 119 – FRAP28j letter – Filed May 21, 2017.

67 – ROUNDTABLE – Areas of Constitutional Doctrine Transformed – FRAP Rule 28j letter – Filed May 22, 2017.

68 – Voisine v. US 136 S.Ct. 2272 – 2016 – FRAP Rule 28j letter – Filed May 23, 2017.

69 – Duffie v. City of Lincoln – 834 F. 3d 877 – 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 2016 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed May 30, 2017.

70 – Fisher v. Kealoha FRAP 28j letter – Filed June 12, 2017.

71 – A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law Volume 3 – 1819 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed June 15, 2017.

72 – US v. Gamboa-Cardenas 508 F. 3d 491 – Court of Appeals 9th Circuit 2007- FRAP 28j letter – Filed June 17, 2017.

73 – Beckles v. US 137 S. Ct. 886 – Supreme Court – 2017 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed June 20, 2017.

74 – McCalip v Ted Conferences LLC No 16-55510 – 9th Circuit – 2017 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed June 21, 2017.

78 – HUGHES V KISELA No 14-15059 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed June 29, 2017.

79 – Duncan et al v Becerra et al – SD California – June 29-2017 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 1, 2017.

81 – Bauer v. Becerra – 9th Cir – June 1-2017 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 2, 2017.

85 – Corrected Parker v. District of Columbia – 2007 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 5, 2017.

86 – People v McDonnell 32 Cal App 694 704 Cal Ct App 1917 – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 6, 2017.

87 – People v King 582 P 2d 1000 Cal 1978- FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 7, 2017.

90 – Attorney General Concurrence With Final Report and Recommendation – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 14, 2017.

91 – California Government Code sections of the California Emergency Services Act – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 19, 2017.

92 – Romer v Evans and Pacific Shores Properties v City of Newport Beach – FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 21, 2017.

96 – Packingham v. North Carolina 137 S. Ct. 1730 – 2017 – Filed October 21, 2017.

97 – IN RE JAIME P 40 Cal.4th 128 – 2006 – Filed November 17, 2017.

98 – People v. Casares 364 P.3d 1093 Cal. 2016 – Filed November 17, 2017.

99 – People v. Schmitz 288 P.3d 1259 Cal. 2012 – Filed November 18, 2017.

California’s Response to My FRAP 28(j) Letters

63 – California’s Response to my FRAP 28j – Norman v. State – Filed April 6, 2017.

64 – California’s Response to my FRAP 28j Regarding Flanagan v Harris – Filed April 6, 2017.

 

 

California’s FRAP 28(j) Letters

88 – Aneja and Donahue Study – Appellees FRAP 28j letter – Filed July 7, 2017.

 

 

My Responses to California’s FRAP 28(j) Letters

89 – Response by Appellant to Appellees letter of July 7-2017 – Filed July 10, 2017.

 

Miscellaneous

75 – Notice of Substitution of Appellee

The following transaction was entered on 06/21/2017 at 3:36:57 PM PDT and filed on 06/21/2017

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

Docket Text:
Appellee Kamala D. Harris in 14-55873 substituted by Appellee Xavier Becerra in 14-55873 [10483151] (SW)

77 – Notice of Related Case – George Young Jr v State of Hawaii et al No 12-17808 – Filed June 28, 2017.

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 06/28/2017 at 1:01:28 AM PDT and filed on 06/28/2017

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

Docket Text:
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols identified in his Statement of Related Cases on the last page of his initial brief George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No.: 12-17808. Both dockets should be updated to reflect the related case.. Date of service: 06/28/2017 [10490254] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles)

80 – Errata to FRAP Rule 28j letters – Filed July 1, 2017

82 – Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols Motion to Schedule Oral Argument With Related Case – Filed on July 4, 2017.

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 07/04/2017 at 12:23:00 AM PDT and filed on 07/04/2017

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

Docket Text:
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808. Date of service: 07/04/2017. [10496744] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles)

93 – Denial of Initial En Banc Petition and Denial of Hawaii Motion

95 – State of California Correspondence Regarding Oral Argument




My appeal is now fully briefed.  Either there will be oral arguments, in which case immediately after the completion of the oral arguments my case will be taken under submission for a decision, or the panel of judges will decide not to have oral arguments at which point my appeal will immediately be taken under submission for a decision which, theoretically, is supposed to happen within 9 months of the case being taken under submission for a decision.  It took 1 year, 2 months and 7 days from oral arguments to the three judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego and 11 months and 24 days from en banc oral arguments to the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego.

If the current briefing schedule remains unchanged (It didn’t.  The state was given an additional 60 days) then oral arguments can potentially be scheduled as early as March June.  Concurrent with my opening brief I filed a petition for my appeal to be heard initially before an en banc court and I will be filing a motion for expedited oral arguments and a decision.  If either or both is granted then we should have a decision in my appeal in 2017 or early 2018.  If oral arguments are scheduled in some other case which involves carrying firearms outside of the home before a decision on my en banc motion is decided then I will very likely file a motion to have my appeal aligned with that case (meaning that it will be heard before the same panel of judges).

And there is always the remote chance that SCOTUS grants a 2A carry case.  If that happens then the 9th circuit will stay ever carry case pending the SCOTUS decision.

Please note that my appeal of the final judgment by district court judge S. James Otero is stylized as Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al.  The district court judgment was stylized as Nichols v. Harris.  Governor Brown was dismissed with prejudice in the first round.  I had to wait until final judgment in the district court before appealing that dismissal.  The proper title of my appeal is Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al or Nichols v. Brown in short and will remain so until a final judgment is reached on appeal.  Those with a Federal Pacer account can access the appellate docket by clicking here.

Kamala Harris’ election to the US Senate does not affect my appeal.  She was sued solely in her official capacity as attorney general of California.  Parties to a lawsuit sued in their official capacity are automatically substituted when a new person takes their place.  The official title of my lawsuit remains unchanged – Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al.

This month’s Motion Panel.




Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 13, 2017 – Today, the state’s attorney for the California state defendants sent a letter to the court saying it did not have an “unavoidable conflict” but would prefer that oral argument takes place in February or March and not April.

95 – State of California Correspondence Regarding Oral Argument

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 10, 2017 – Something new.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 10/10/2017 at 11:01:35 AM PDT and filed on 10/10/2017

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

 

Docket Text:
This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Pasadena

Please review the Pasadena sitting dates for February 2018 and the two subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please inform the court within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: regarding availability for oral argument).

When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.

If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation).[10610781] (AW)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Ms. Megan Dixon, Attorney
Mr. Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Simon J. Frankel, Attorney
Mr. Deepak Gupta
Charles Nichols

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 10/10/2017 at 10:48:43 AM PDT and filed on 10/10/2017

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

 

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): No judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by General Order 5.2a. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [31]) is therefore denied. Appellant’s motion (Docket Entry No. [82]) to schedule oral argument with a related case is denied. [10610747] (OC)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Ms. Megan Dixon, Attorney
Mr. Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Simon J. Frankel, Attorney
Mr. Deepak Gupta
Charles Nichols

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 15, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 31, 2017 – Oral argument in my appeal is now tentatively scheduled for the week of February 12, 2018, in Hawaii.  Other than that, nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 2, 2017 – Motions Panel:

Motions Panel

During the month of AUGUST, Judges SCHROEDERHAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH are assigned to consider ready substantive motions matters. In the event of recusal or unavailability, we will draw another judge at random to consider the matter(s) in question.

For motions that require relief within 21 days, you must call the Motions Unit at (415) 355-8020 prior to filing the motion.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 31, 2017 – Nothing new.  Motions still pending.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 21, 2017 – I filed another FRAP 28(j) letter regarding the motivation behind the 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry fifty years ago – The Black Panthers.

92 – Romer v Evans and Pacific Shores Properties v City of Newport Beach – FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 19, 2017 – I filed another FRAP 28(j) letter which pretty much sinks Governor Brown’s claim that the 11th Amendment bars suit against him.

91 – California Government Code sections of the California Emergency Services Act – FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 12, 2017 – It appears that oral arguments in my appeal may very well take place during the week of November 6th in Pasadena.  My motion to have my appeal heard before the same panel, and on the same day, as Young v. Hawaii is still pending.  Reportedly, the lawyers in that case were contacted but the attorney representing Hawaii said “No!”  The court can still calendar the Young appeal to take place in Pasadena.  The court has the power to schedule oral arguments anywhere in the 9th circuit.  If the court wants to calendar both appeals before the same panel in Alaska in December then it has the power to do so.

I am surprised that the Hawaii county attorney reportedly gave as his reason for not coming to Pasadena as “I don’t want to.”  In any event, if my motion is denied then at least we now know that oral arguments in my appeal will very likely be scheduled for the week of November 6th.  When oral arguments will take place in Young is more problematic.  The court of appeals holds oral arguments in Hawaii only three times a year.  Court rules requires that the panel of judges be given the briefs in an appeal at least 12 weeks prior to oral arguments taking place.  If the Young v. Hawaii appeal had already been assigned to a panel for oral arguments to take place in October then it is unlikely that the court would have sought to calendar the oral arguments to take place alongside my appeal in Pasadena.

This means that the Young v. Hawaii oral arguments will likely take place next February in Hawaii and oral arguments in my case will take place in November.  This is fine by me as that means my case will be taken under submission for a decision first.  That means the decision in my case is the one which will be binding in the 9th circuit.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 7, 2017 Governor Brown and Attorney General Becerra filed their very first notice of supplemental authority also known as a FRAP 28(j) letter.  Putting aside the fact that the state’s attorney forgot to attach the certificate of service, it appears that he doesn’t quite understand that “studies” (be they pro or anti-gun) are not “authorities.”  They are evidence subject to dispute and when evidence is in dispute, it is up to a jury to decide, in the trial court.  Courts of appeal are, with rare exceptions not present in my appeal, limited to briefs filed in the appeal and the documents filed in the district court.  I had reminded the state’s attorney and the Court in my FRAP 28(j) letter of June 21 which said:

“We do not consider evidence, allegations, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The appellate process is for addressing the legal issues a case presents, not for generating new evidence to parry an opponent’s arguments.”); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). Slip Op. at 2-3.”

88 – Aneja and Donahue Study

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 7, 2017 – I filed another notice of supplemental authority.

87 – People v King 582 P 2d 1000 Cal 1978- FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 6, 2017 – I filed another notice of supplemental authority.

86 – People v McDonnell 32 Cal App 694 704 Cal Ct App 1917 – FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 5, 2017 – I inadvertently attached the Parker v. DC Complaint I downloaded from Justia to my FRAP 28(j) letter of July 4th instead of attaching a copy of the Complaint downloaded from PACER.  I just filed a corrected letter.  Edit: the clerk inadvertently deleted my corrected filing.  I called the clerks office and they said to resubmit my corrected version, which I did.  She was very, very nice.  She said that she would deliver the corrected entry to the merits panel.  I asked in a surprised voice (mainly because I was surprised) if my appeal had been assigned to a merits panel.  She said not yet.

85 – Corrected Parker v. District of Columbia – 2007 – FRAP 28j letter

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 07/05/2017 at 2:01:38 AM PDT and filed on 07/05/2017

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

Docket Text:
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/05/2017. [10496770] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 4, 2017, Part 2 – I was up all night looking for more case law to file notices of in my appeal and settled on writing a notice of supplemental authority in the court of appeals case Parker et al v. District of Columbia which became District of Columbia v. Heller when it went before the US Supreme Court.  The FRAP 28(j) letter I wrote turned out to be very different than the one I had intended to write.  As I read the decision in Parker remanding the case back to the district court and ordering it to grant the relief requested in The Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint, I decided to read that section of the Complaint.

It turns out that not only had the Complaint asked to overturn the D.C. laws inside of the home, it asked to overturn the bans on land possessed by the plaintiffs.  There was no restriction on the type of land possessed by the plaintiffs.  If they possessed land then it came within the scope of the Heller decision, a decision which in turn affirmed the decision by the circuit court in Heller.

The State of Hawaii claimed in Young v. Hawaii that the Second Amendment is limited to within the walls of one’s home.  The state’s attorney in my appeal did his usual tap dance and told the court that folks can carry loaded and unloaded firearms on their property while at the same time failing to mention that only applies to folks who have a tall, sturdy fence or other significant barrier to entry to their property.  Which I don’t have and to which it is an undisputed fact (meaning the court of appeals is required to accept it as being true).

It turns out that the Heller decision wasn’t limited to one’s home.

And not forgetting, which the court of appeals can’t in my case because I told them, the McDonald decision did not strike down a law prohibiting the possession of handguns in the home.  It struck down a citywide ban on handgun possession which applied only to residents of the City of Chicago.  A non-resident who owned a handgun could carry it on property located within the city limits and possessed by a resident of Chicago (with his permission) where as the person who possessed the property could not.

As I also pointed out, the dissent in the McDonald decision lashed out at the justices in the majority for publishing a decision which extended the Second Amendment beyond possession of a handgun within the home.

This has turned out to be a great Independence Day!

83 – Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 – 2007 FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 4, 2017 – I filed a motion to hear my appeal before the panel which will hear the case of George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808.  On June 27, 2017, the Clerk of the Court issued an Order on Behalf of the Court lifting the stay in Young.  The Order also stated “This appeal shall be placed on the next available calendar.”  As of the filing of my motion, the California Attorney General’s Office takes no position on my motion.  Given that I do not seek to consolidate my case with Young and I do not seek divided argument and because there is no briefing which would be delayed if my motion is granted and Young v. Hawaii will not have to be rescheduled for oral arguments or a decision, I don’t foresee any objection to my motion being filed.

If my motion is granted then oral arguments in my California Open Carry appeal will be heard before the same panel, on the same day, that oral arguments take place in Young v. Hawaii.  I do not know when or where that will be other than the earliest date on the calendar for the San Francisco courthouse is the third week of September.  Given that the briefs in an appeal are delivered to the judges on a panel no later than 12 weeks before the oral arguments are to take place, the earliest they would take place is October.

Also, my motion reminded the court that I still have a petition pending for my appeal to be initially heard before an en banc panel and that the petition has not been formally denied without prejudice as required by the rules of the court.  This saves me from having to file a separate document requesting clarification on the status of my petition.

82 – Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols Motion to Schedule Oral Argument With Related Case

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 2, 2017 – I Just filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding Bauer v. Becerra.  I had sat on it for a month because, frankly, the decision sucks.  However, the judge who issued the preliminary injunction against the California magazine ban thought it supported an injunction there so I thought, why not here as well.

81 – Bauer v. Becerra – 9th Cir – June 1-2017 – FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 1, 2017 – I Just filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding the Duncan v. Becerra preliminary injunction against California’s “large capacity” magazine ban.  It was nice to read that the Judge agrees that gun-control laws should be subject to a one-step Heller test.  I argued that in my opening brief in my California Open Carry appeal but my one-step test was even simpler.  If a law so much as infringes on the Second Amendment then it is unconstitutional.  I also argued that the Open Carry bans fail the two-step test used in this circuit and for that matter fail any standard of review, including rational basis review.  The judge also explained why the law is unconstitutionally vague (a 14th Amendment violation) which mirrored my vagueness challenge.  You can read my notice of supplemental authority (FRAP 28(j) letter) here.

I have filed 17 notices of supplemental authority in the four months since I filed my first on March 2, 2017.

The state’s attorney representing Governor Brown and Attorney General Becerra hasn’t filed a single one.

79 – Duncan et al v Becerra et al – SD California – June 29-2017 – FRAP 28j letter

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 1, 2017 – Just after midnight, the July motions panel was published.  It is unusual for it to be published this early.  Judge Kozinski wrote a stellar defense of the Second Amendment in a dissent years ago.  Judge Goodwin is a senior status judge who is also 94 years old.  I don’t really know where he would stand on the Second Amendment and the final judge on the motions panel, Judge Berzon, is a liberal.

Motions Panel

During the month of JULY, Judges GOODWINKOZINSKI, and BERZON are assigned to consider ready substantive motions matters. In the event of recusal or unavailability, we will draw another judge at random to consider the matter(s) in question.

These are not the judges assigned to my appeal.  These three judges handle the motions made in cases which the Clerk and Appellate Commissioner don’t have the authority to decide. 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 29, 2017 – Today I filed what will probably be my last FRAP 28(j) letter on the Fourth Amendment from this circuit.  I don’t think I will find a better case.

78 – HUGHES V KISELA No 14-15059 – FRAP 28j letter

05/30/2017  69  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/30/2017. [10451305] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/30/2017 01:15 AM]
06/12/2017  70  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/12/2017. [10467915] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/12/2017 01:17 AM]
06/15/2017  71  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/15/2017. [10475904] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/15/2017 09:26 PM]
06/17/2017  72  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/17/2017. [10477673] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/17/2017 01:39 PM]
06/20/2017  73  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/20/2017. [10480092] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/20/2017 12:26 AM]
06/21/2017  74  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/21/2017. [10481913] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/21/2017 12:08 AM]
06/21/2017  75  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Please take notice that Xavier Becerra is now the California Attorney General. Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 43 c(2), he was automatically substituted as a party in this action, replacing his predecessor Kamala D. Harris, on January 24, 2017.. Date of service: 06/21/2017 [10481914] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/21/2017 02:27 AM]
06/21/2017  76 Appellee Kamala D. Harris in 14-55873 substituted by Appellee Xavier Becerra in 14-55873 [10483151] (SW) [Entered: 06/21/2017 03:36 PM]
06/28/2017  77  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols identified in his Statement of Related Cases on the last page of his initial brief George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No.: 12-17808. Both dockets should be updated to reflect the related case.. Date of service: 06/28/2017 [10490254] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/28/2017 01:01 AM]
06/29/2017  78  Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/29/2017. [10492786] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/29/2017 02:17 PM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 28, 2017 – Today I noticed that my docket still does not reflect Young v. Hawaii as a related case and so I filed this letter of Correspondence to the Court.

77 – Notice of Related Case – George Young Jr v State of Hawaii et al No 12-17808

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 21, 2017 – Today I filed another Notice of Supplemental Authority (FRAP 28(j) letter).  I have been waiting for a short and sweet slap-down of someone who tried to use the court of appeals as a trial court, which Governor Brown and Attorney General Becerra are attempting to do, and this is it.  Note that the court of appeals refused to remand the case so that the Appellant could have a do-over in the district court.  In my letter, I point out that even if the new evidence were admissible (doubtful), the evidence is inapposite to Brown and Becerra’s new argument on appeal.  I also filed a Notice of Substitution of Appellee.  I had reminded the state’s attorney that he should file it months ago but he never did.  At 3:36 PM, the Court sent out a notice that Attorney General Xavier Becerra was substituted for former Attorney General Kamala D. Harris.

74 – McCalip v Ted Conferences LLC No 16-55510 – 9th Circuit – 2017 – FRAP 28j letter

75 – Notice of Substitution of Appellee

The following transaction was entered on 06/21/2017 at 3:36:57 PM PDT and filed on 06/21/2017

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

Docket Text:
Appellee Kamala D. Harris in 14-55873 substituted by Appellee Xavier Becerra in 14-55873 [10483151] (SW)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 20, 2017 – Today I filed another Notice of Supplemental Authority (FRAP 28(j) letter).

73 – Beckles v. US 137 S. Ct. 886 – Supreme Court – 2017 – FRAP 28j letter




Federal Appellate Docket as it Appeared on September 27, 2017

You will need a PACER account to access the filings from the docket.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 14-55873 Docketed: 05/29/2014
Nature of Suit: 3440 Other Civil Rights
Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) private
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0973-2 : 2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS
     Court Reporter: Hilda Avila, Court Reporter
     Trial Judge: S. James Otero, District Judge
     Date Filed: 11/30/2011
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     05/01/2014      05/01/2014      05/27/2014      05/28/2014
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Related
13-56203 14-55873 05/29/2014

 

CHARLES NICHOLS
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Charles Nichols
Direct: 424-634-7381
[NTC Pro Se]
Charles Nichols
P. O. Box 1302
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
   v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California
Defendant – Appellee,
Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General
[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
California Department of Justice
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, Attorney General in her official capacity as Attorney General of California
Terminated: 06/21/2017
Defendant – Appellee,
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General in her official capacity as Attorney General of California
Defendant – Appellee,
Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General
[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
(see above)
——————————
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY
Amicus Curiae – Pending,
Deepak Gupta
Direct: 202-888-1741
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Gupta Wessler PLLC
1900 L Street, NW
Suite 312
Washington, DC 20036
LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
Amicus Curiae – Pending,
Simon J. Frankel, Esquire, Attorney
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Covington & Burling, LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
Amicus Curiae – Pending,
Megan Dixon, Attorney
Direct: 415-374-2305
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Hogan Lovells US LLP
1500
3 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111

CHARLES NICHOLS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,

Defendants – Appellees.

05/29/2014   1 
30 pg, 477.86 KB
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF APPELLANT IN PRO SE AND COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 06/26/2014. Transcript due 09/24/2014. Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief due 11/03/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief due 12/03/2014. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9112138] (BG) [Entered: 05/29/2014 09:35 AM]
10/16/2014   2 
1 pg, 75.09 KB
Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM]
11/19/2014   3 
9 pg, 163.2 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 11/19/2014. [9319541] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 11/19/2014 04:00 PM]
11/23/2014   4 
7 pg, 325.56 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 02/02/2015. Date of service: 11/23/2014. [9323238] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/23/2014 02:19 AM]
11/29/2014   5 
15 pg, 539.94 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols response opposing motion (motion to stay proceedings). Date of service: 11/29/2014. [9329997] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/29/2014 04:02 PM]
12/01/2014   6 
293 pg, 2.27 MB
Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review and filed Motion to file oversized brief. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 12/01/2014. [9332447] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/01/2014 05:51 PM]
12/08/2014   7 
7 pg, 149.71 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris reply to response (). Date of service: 12/08/2014. [9340537] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/08/2014 01:07 PM]
12/15/2014   8 
12 pg, 416.5 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Motion for miscellaneous relief [motion to file sur-reply in opposition to motion to stay proceedings with sur-reply attached]. Date of service: 12/15/2014. [9348557] [14-55873] –[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 12/17/2014 by TL] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/15/2014 08:02 AM]
12/24/2014   9 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Answering Brief by Appellees Kamala D. Harris and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. New requested due date is 01/30/2015. [9361612] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/24/2014 11:24 AM]
12/24/2014   10 Streamlined request [9] by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. See 9th Cir. R. 32-2. [9362274] (GS) [Entered: 12/24/2014 04:17 PM]
01/21/2015   11 
2 pg, 44.1 KB
Filed order (Appellate Commissioner):Appellant’s motion to file sur-reply in opposition to appellee’s motion to stay proceedings is granted. Appellant’s sur-reply and the previously submitted filings concerning the motion to stay proceedings have been considered. Appellees’ opposed motion to stay proceedings pending the court’s ruling whether to grant the petition for en banc review in Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 is granted. Within 90 days after the date of this order or within 14 days after the court rules on the petition for en banc review in Richards, whichever occurs first, appellees shall file an appropriate motion addressing the status of this appeal and requesting a further stay or other relief. Appellant’s motion to file an oversized opening brief is granted in part. Appellant may file an opening brief that does not exceed 18,000 words. The opening brief is due within 14 days after the stay granted in the preceding paragraph (or any subsequent stay) expires. Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension to file a shortened opening brief is granted. The answering brief is due within 45 days after the stay expires. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. (Pro Mo) [9389344] (MS) [Entered: 01/21/2015 09:54 AM]
04/09/2015   12 
7 pg, 109.01 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 04/09/2015. [9490307] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/09/2015 03:41 PM]
04/13/2015   13 
2 pg, 45.26 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56791, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until August 14, 2015. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief will be due September The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9493503] (SM) [Entered: 04/13/2015 03:19 PM]
07/17/2015   14 
19 pg, 785.34 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 07/17/2015. [9613382] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/17/2015 09:18 AM]
07/21/2015   15 
2 pg, 45.08 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until November 9, 2015. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief will be due December 9, 2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9617794] (SM) [Entered: 07/21/2015 04:24 PM]
10/08/2015   16 
20 pg, 1.27 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 10/08/2015. [9713043] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 10/08/2015 09:29 PM]
11/09/2015   17 
1 pg, 44.4 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AMT): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10- 56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until February 8, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due March 9, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9749950] (OC) [Entered: 11/09/2015 04:10 PM]
01/20/2016   18 
14 pg, 1.1 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 01/20/2016. [9832291] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 01/20/2016 01:03 AM]
02/04/2016   19 
2 pg, 45.16 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10- 56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until April 8, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due May 9, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9855106] (OC) [Entered: 02/04/2016 03:43 PM]
03/17/2016   20 
12 pg, 624.2 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay appellate proceedings. Date of service: 03/17/2016. [9904667] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2016 12:12 AM]
03/17/2016   21 
7 pg, 692.54 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols status report (as required by Court order dated 02/04/2016). Date of service: 03/17/2016 [9904668] [14-55873] –[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 03/17/2016 by TYL] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2016 12:15 AM]
04/05/2016   22 
2 pg, 44.99 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10- 56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until July 20, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due August 19, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9928156] (OC) [Entered: 04/05/2016 02:12 PM]
07/17/2016   23 
12 pg, 641.49 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay appellate proceedings. Date of service: 07/17/2016. [10052555] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/17/2016 10:56 PM]
07/17/2016   24 
8 pg, 474.14 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols status report (as required by Court order dated 04/05/2016). Date of service: 07/17/2016 [10052556] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/17/2016 11:00 PM]
07/22/2016   25 
2 pg, 45.29 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion (docket entry [23]) to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of the petitions for full court rehearing in Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until November 17, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due December 19, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [10060696] (AF) [Entered: 07/22/2016 05:01 PM]
11/09/2016   26 
276 pg, 8.38 MB
Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 11/09/2016. [10191823] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/09/2016 01:01 PM]
11/09/2016   27 
298 pg, 7.94 MB
Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 11/09/2016. [10191843] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/09/2016 01:10 PM]
11/09/2016   28 
2 pg, 187.52 KB
Filed clerk order: The opening brief [26] submitted by Charles Nichols is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the excerpts of record [27] submitted by Charles Nichols. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [10192113] (SML) [Entered: 11/09/2016 02:43 PM]
11/15/2016   29 Filed 4 paper copies of excerpts of record [27] in 2 volume(s) filed by Appellant Charles Nichols. [10198903] (SML) [Entered: 11/16/2016 10:50 AM]
11/16/2016   30 Received 7 paper copies of Opening Brief [26] filed by Charles Nichols. [10199355] (RG) [Entered: 11/16/2016 01:42 PM]
12/14/2016   31 
68 pg, 2.7 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols petition for rehearing en banc (from 05/01/2014 opinion). Date of service: 12/14/2016. [10232220] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/14/2016 12:08 AM]
12/16/2016   32 
7 pg, 727.92 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellees Kamala D. Harris and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion to extend time to file Answering brief until 02/17/2017. Date of service: 12/16/2016. [10236871] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/16/2016 02:07 PM]
12/20/2016   33 
12 pg, 860.61 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols response opposing motion ([32] Motion (ECF Filing), [32] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to extend time to file brief). Date of service: 12/20/2016. [10239389] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/20/2016 12:14 AM]
01/18/2017   34 
1 pg, 33.49 KB
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) [Entered: 01/18/2017 10:57 AM]
02/16/2017   35 
277 pg, 20.63 MB
Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellee Kamala D. Harris. Date of service: 02/16/2017. [10323651] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 02/16/2017 08:10 PM]
02/17/2017   36 
363 pg, 46.02 MB
Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. Date of service: 02/17/2017. [10325346] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 02/17/2017 04:13 PM]
02/21/2017   37 
2 pg, 187.11 KB
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [36] submitted by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: red. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [35] submitted by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [10325899] (SML) [Entered: 02/21/2017 09:08 AM]
02/22/2017   38 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Reply Brief by Appellant Charles Nichols. New requested due date is 04/03/2017. [10328370] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 02/22/2017 10:17 AM]
02/22/2017   39 Streamlined request [38] by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: the optional reply brief is due 04/03/2017. [10328741] (DJW) [Entered: 02/22/2017 12:02 PM]
02/23/2017   40 Received 7 paper copies of Answering Brief [36] filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. [10330488] (RG) [Entered: 02/23/2017 10:45 AM]
02/23/2017   43 Filed 4 paper copies of supplemental excerpts of record [35] in 1 volume(s) filed by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. [10332807] (SML) [Entered: 02/24/2017 02:25 PM]
02/24/2017   41 
42 pg, 1.92 MB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/24/2017. [10331950] [14-55873]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected brief and motion. 02/27/2017 by SLM] (Dixon, Megan) [Entered: 02/24/2017 09:42 AM]
02/24/2017   42 
42 pg, 318.36 KB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Everytown for Gun Safety. Date of service: 02/24/2017. [10332593] [14-55873] (Gupta, Deepak) [Entered: 02/24/2017 01:38 PM]
02/24/2017   44 
43 pg, 194.66 KB
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/24/2017. [10333361] [14-55873] (Frankel, Simon) [Entered: 02/24/2017 05:58 PM]
02/27/2017   45 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Everytown for Gun Safety. [10333735] (SML) [Entered: 02/27/2017 09:30 AM]
02/27/2017   46 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10333740] (SML) [Entered: 02/27/2017 09:32 AM]
02/27/2017   47 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10335280] (SML) [Entered: 02/27/2017 04:45 PM]
03/01/2017   48 
67 pg, 2.36 MB
Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 03/01/2017. [10337392] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/01/2017 12:18 AM]
03/01/2017   49 
44 pg, 1.91 MB
Submitted (ECF) Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 03/01/2017. [10337393] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/01/2017 12:22 AM]
03/01/2017   50 
2 pg, 187.08 KB
Filed clerk order: The reply brief [49] submitted by Charles Nichols is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [48] submitted by Charles Nichols. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [10337681] (SML) [Entered: 03/01/2017 09:40 AM]
03/02/2017   51 
3 pg, 573.72 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/02/2017. [10339445] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/02/2017 01:57 AM]
03/06/2017   52 Received 7 paper copies of Reply Brief [49] filed by Charles Nichols. [10344317] (RG) [Entered: 03/06/2017 12:55 PM]
03/06/2017   53 
2 pg, 35.59 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): The motion of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Docket Entry No. [41]) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and any response thereto is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case for resolution. The motion of Everytown for Gun Safety (Docket Entry No. [42]) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and any response thereto is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case for resolution. The motion of Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Docket Entry No. [44]) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and any response thereto is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case for resolution. Within 7 days after the date of this order, the above named amici curiae are ordered to file 7 copies of the briefs in paper formats, with green covers, accompanied by certifications (attached to the end of each copy of the briefs) that the briefs are identical to the versions submitted electronically. A sample certification is available on the Court’s website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov at the Electronic Filing – ECF link. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF versions of the briefs created from the word processing applications, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. For regular U.S. mail, the address is P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939. For overnight mail, the address is 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1526. [10345042] (HC) [Entered: 03/06/2017 03:24 PM]
03/06/2017   54 Filed 4 paper copies of supplemental excerpts of record [48] in 1 volume(s) filed by Appellant Charles Nichols. [10348282] (SML) [Entered: 03/08/2017 11:46 AM]
03/09/2017   55 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus Brief [42] filed by Everytown for Gun Safety. [10350214] (RG) [Entered: 03/09/2017 12:46 PM]
03/09/2017   56 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus Brief [41] filed by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10351208] (RG) [Entered: 03/10/2017 08:08 AM]
03/13/2017   57 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus Brief [44] filed by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10353566] (RG) [Entered: 03/13/2017 11:41 AM]
03/17/2017   58 
10 pg, 679.43 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362315] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:22 PM]
03/17/2017   59 
61 pg, 1017.42 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362318] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:25 PM]
03/17/2017   60 
11 pg, 632.52 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362320] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:29 PM]
03/17/2017   61 
77 pg, 3.49 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362322] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:38 PM]
03/20/2017   62 No judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by General Order 5.2a. The request is therefore denied. [10362530] (HH) [Entered: 03/20/2017 08:57 AM]
04/06/2017   63 
2 pg, 504.31 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/06/2017. [10387343] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/06/2017 05:11 PM]
04/06/2017   64 
2 pg, 627.76 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/06/2017. [10387426] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/06/2017 09:39 PM]
05/15/2017   65 
13 pg, 729.28 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/15/2017. [10433465] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/15/2017 07:34 AM]
05/21/2017   66 
8 pg, 800.43 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/21/2017. [10442491] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/21/2017 06:39 PM]
05/22/2017   67 
3 pg, 577.24 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/22/2017. [10443985] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/22/2017 03:51 PM]
05/23/2017   68 
3 pg, 579.67 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/23/2017. [10446163] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/23/2017 08:26 PM]
05/30/2017   69 
18 pg, 631.24 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/30/2017. [10451305] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/30/2017 01:15 AM]
06/12/2017   70 
16 pg, 662.08 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/12/2017. [10467915] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/12/2017 01:17 AM]
06/15/2017   71 
6 pg, 872.97 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/15/2017. [10475904] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/15/2017 09:26 PM]
06/17/2017   72 
3 pg, 572.48 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/17/2017. [10477673] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/17/2017 01:39 PM]
06/20/2017   73 
3 pg, 578.79 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/20/2017. [10480092] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/20/2017 12:26 AM]
06/21/2017   74 
6 pg, 944.21 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/21/2017. [10481913] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/21/2017 12:08 AM]
06/21/2017   75 
3 pg, 576.39 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Please take notice that Xavier Becerra is now the California Attorney General. Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 43 c(2), he was automatically substituted as a party in this action, replacing his predecessor Kamala D. Harris, on January 24, 2017.. Date of service: 06/21/2017 [10481914] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/21/2017 02:27 AM]
06/21/2017   76 Appellee Kamala D. Harris in 14-55873 substituted by Appellee Xavier Becerra in 14-55873 [10483151] (Walker, Synitha) [Entered: 06/21/2017 03:36 PM]
06/28/2017   77 
4 pg, 662.79 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols identified in his Statement of Related Cases on the last page of his initial brief George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No.: 12-17808. Both dockets should be updated to reflect the related case.. Date of service: 06/28/2017 [10490254] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/28/2017 01:01 AM]
06/29/2017   78 
51 pg, 797.48 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/29/2017. [10492786] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/29/2017 02:17 PM]
07/01/2017   79 
69 pg, 943.69 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/01/2017. [10495150] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/01/2017 08:26 AM]
07/01/2017   80 
3 pg, 579.79 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/01/2017. [10495153] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/01/2017 11:21 AM]
07/02/2017   81 
24 pg, 695.79 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/02/2017. [10495172] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/02/2017 03:16 AM]
07/04/2017   82 
7 pg, 692.08 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808. Date of service: 07/04/2017. [10496744] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/04/2017 12:23 AM]
07/04/2017   83 
14 pg, 701.73 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/04/2017. [10496761] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/04/2017 02:00 PM]
07/05/2017   84 COURT DELETED INCORRECT/DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [83]. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/05/2017. [10496770] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/05/2017 02:01 AM]
07/05/2017   85 
14 pg, 709.17 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/05/2017. [10497194] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/05/2017 10:23 AM]
07/06/2017   86 
3 pg, 569.92 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/06/2017. [10499142] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/06/2017 11:13 AM]
07/07/2017   87 
8 pg, 1.87 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/07/2017. [10500540] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/07/2017 10:05 AM]
07/07/2017   88 
1 pg, 100.79 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee Xavier Becerra citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/07/2017. [10501273] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 07/07/2017 02:19 PM]
07/10/2017   89 
3 pg, 577.66 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/10/2017. [10502706] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/10/2017 11:59 AM]
07/14/2017   90 
8 pg, 893.52 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/14/2017. [10509955] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/14/2017 09:58 PM]
07/19/2017   91 
7 pg, 1.59 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/19/2017. [10515142] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/19/2017 07:47 PM]
07/21/2017   92 
74 pg, 3.73 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/21/2017. [10517884] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/21/2017 09:38 PM]

 

Share