The Mandate In Baker v. Kealoha Has Issued

This Appeal Is No Longer Stayed

Young v. State of Hawaii Appeal 12-17808

It has been 138 days 13 hours 55 minutes 55 seconds since this case was stayed!

It has been 1839 days since this case was filed!

It has been 1644 days since the appeal was filed!

It has been 1493 days since the reply brief was filed!

It has been 341 days since the last brief was filed!

It has been 107 days since the motion to lift the stay was filed!

Young v. Hawaii filed a Supplemental Brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 10, 2013.  Click here to read. The Opening brief was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 24, 2012 – George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808.  Here is an errata to the Opening Brief.  Here is the Answering Brief and here is Young’s Reply Brief.  Here is a link to the district court case for those with PACER access and here is a link for those without which includes many of the filings on appeal (EDIT: No longer updated).  Here is Young’s pro se Complaint.  Everything in the Complaint and argued in the district court which was not raised again in his Opening Brief is forfeited on appeal.  The “Conclusion” section of his opening brief is the section of the brief which asks the court of appeals what relief to grant.  One can complain from morning to night about the price of cheese in China in the opening brief of the appeal but if the brief does not ask for relief specific to the price of cheese in China then it is just wasted ink.  Of course, the relief requested of the court of appeals must be relief that the court can grant.  And for the reasons given below, Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, asked for relief the court cannot give.  This is what was asked for in the opening brief:

“Mr. Young respectfully requests this Court issue a directed judgment to the lower Court requiring it to issue a judgment requiring the following: Chapter 134 of Hawaii Revised Statutes be revised to allow for a means to carry a rifle outside the home for self-defense; a shotgun outside the home for self-defense; and an injunction on the laws prohibiting the in the home prohibitions of electric guns, switchblades, and butterfly knives. Finally an order either enjoining HRS 134-9 or compelling City Defendants to adopt policies to allow it to survive constitutional muster.” 

Attorney Beck filed this Errata to the Opening Brief.  Note that he titled it as a Notice of Supplemental Authority.  What can I say?  Some lawyers are easily worth half of what you pay them and it is rumored that Mr. Beck took this case for free.  Which means he might be worth twice that amount.  The reader will have to judge for himself.

Young’s lawyer has since developed some very bizarre legal theories since this appeal was briefed.  For example, he now claims that SCOTUS’ section in the Heller decision regarding “Dangerous and Unusual Weapons” means that Open Carry can be banned.  He made this argument in a machine-gun case he lost and now his co-counsel in that case has been added as an attorney for Young.

Should you read the Opening Brief, written by Attorney Alan Beck, your views on the quality of the brief will vary depending upon how knowledgeable you are about the law.  However, when you get to the conclusion, the part where attorney Beck gets around to telling the court exactly what he wants out of this appeal, even a 3rd year law student will recognize that attorney Beck spectacularly blew his case.

Attorney Beck asks the court of appeals to direct the lower court “to issue a judgment requiring the following: Chapter 134 of Hawaii Revised Statutes be revised to allow for a means to carry a rifle outside the home for self-defense; a shotgun outside the home for self-defense; and an injunction on the laws prohibiting the in the home prohibitions of electric guns, switchblades, and butterfly knives. Finally an order either enjoining HRS 134-9 or compelling City Defendants to adopt policies to allow it to survive constitutional muster.

For the benefit of those of you who aren’t law students, lawyers or who haven’t studied law, I’ll explain a couple of the problems with what attorney Beck has asked the court to do.

1.  Neither the court of appeals nor the district court can order any legislative body to write or revise a law.  A court can overturn all or part of a law and stay its decision for a period of time to give a legislative body time to rewrite a law as occurred in the 7th District Court of Appeals in the case of Moore v. Madigan but that is as far as it can go.  In short, attorney Beck could have asked for an injunction against the current laws which prohibit the carriage of rifles and shotguns outside the home but he didn’t.  Attorney Beck asked the court of appeals to grant him relief courts are powerless to provide.  Moreover, Beck did not challenge Hawaii’s ban on openly carrying long guns in public in the district court.  Every first year law student knows that claims not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.
2. Attorney Beck asks for an order either enjoining HRS 134-9 or compelling City Defendants to adopt policies to allow it to survive constitutional muster. HRS 134-9 is Hawaii’s handgun licensing law for both concealed and Open Carry of handguns.  Asking for an injunction is fine but Attorney Beck made a fatal mistake similar to what attorney Alan Gura did in the Palmer v. DC case and the Hightower v. Boston case.  Attorney Beck gave the court of appeals a choice between two paths and attorney Beck did not specify the result of either path.  For example, the court of appeals could take the first pass and conclude that by not specifying that Beck’s client, Mr. Young, wants to openly carry a handgun and the judge concludes that Mr. Young has no right to carry a handgun concealed in public the judge can easily deny the injunction.  This is the mistake that Alan Gura made in the Hightower case.  Having pursued one path the court is not obligated to pursue the other.  Because Beck said “or” instead of “and” which frankly is a mistake one shouldn’t make past kindergarten, the judge isn’t required to explore the alternate path.  But let us assume the court decides to follow both paths.   Attorney Beck did not specify what policy the City Defendants must adopt, he left that up to the court.  The court could look at the current policy of the City Defendants is not to issue permits to carry handguns concealed.  Which is a perfectly valid thing for the City Defendants to do as Heller said there is no right to carry concealed weapons in public.  This is the mistake that Alan Gura made in Palmer v. DC which was only saved because the DC police did not issue handgun carry permits at all because they did not exist and the challenged law prohibited both open and concealed carry.  The City Defendants on the other hand  in Hawaii do issue licenses to openly carry handguns.  The problem is they only issue them to persons employed to defend life and property.  Attorney Beck did not claim that his client wanted to openly carry a handgun, attorney Beck did not argue that the City Defendants were unconstitutionally denying Mr. Young a handgun carry license.  As far as the court is concerned, it is looking at a case similar to Mr. Gura’s challenge to the New Jersey handgun licensing scheme.  Mr. Gura did not challenge the license require for New Jersey handgun carry permits and the state of New Jersey granted most license applications (greater than 90%).  There is no reason for the court not to decide that the City Defendant’s policy is constitutional.  Judges cannot be faulted for not being mind-readers.  Finally, even if the court were to grant the injunction against HRS 134-9, Mr. Young would still not be able to carry a handgun in public given that HRS 134-9 is the section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes which provides for a permit to carry in public.  It is the permit which exempts the permit holder from criminal liability for carrying a loaded handgun in public.
3. Young’s attorney also raises, for the first time on appeal, a challenge to Hawaii’s ban on electric guns, switchblades and butterfly knives.  Failing to raise a claim in the district court forfeits the claim on appeal.
4. In short, Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, filed an appeal which was doomed the moment he submitted his opening brief.

The one “out” that Mr. Young might have is that he is not a lawyer.  He fought this case in the district court on his own without the benefit of counsel.  Such cases are supposed to be “liberally construed” in favor of the pro se party, particularly when it is a civil rights case.  However, on appeal Mr. Young was represented by a lawyer and that may weigh against him.  If this were a case not involving the Second Amendment then this case would be remanded back to the district court for a do-over.  In any event, Mr. Young does not have standing to challenge Hawaii’s ban on carrying long guns in public.  Given that he was twice denied a license to carry a handgun openly or concealed and stated this in his Complaint, and the relief he seeks is for a license to carry openly or concealed, Mr. Young does have standing to challenge the denial of a license to openly carry a handgun as the denial of a state license is always presumed to confer Article III standing.  Given the weird posture of this case, the outcome is dependent upon the three judge panel assigned to this case.  Another thing Mr. Young has going for him is that the lawyers hired by the defendants are not very good.

I hope Mr. Young wins and gets his license to openly carry a handgun.  I hope his win does not result in the 9th circuit court of appeals publishing an opinion which holds that the Second Amendment right can be conditioned upon having a government issued permission slip.

If Mr. Young’s case is remanded back to the district court for a do-over, I hope he hires a new attorney, competent to represent him.  It would be a tragedy for Mr. Young to lose again because his lawyer(s) screwed up.

From the motion to file a supplemental Amicus brief by the state of Hawaii (Dkt #91 [fn 2]):

” Plaintiff’s attack on Hawai‘i’s restrictions on long guns should be disregarded
because he never mentioned, much less challenged, those statutory restrictions in
his pleadings below, and no factual record underpins such claims. Bolder v. C.I.R.,
760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985) (disregarding issues raised for the first time on
appeal). Furthermore, plaintiff has no standing to challenge such restrictions as he
never alleged an imminent desire to carry a long gun in public.”

In order to access the individual filings from the Federal Docket links below, you will need a Federal PACER account.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 22,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 15,  2017 – Notice of supplemental authority filed yesterday.  Unsurprisingly, the case cited is irrelevant to this case.

106 – Young v. Hawaii Notice of Supplemental Authority

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 8,  2017 – Nothing new.  The stay expired 90 days ago.  One would think there would have been some movement in this appeal by now.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 31,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 8,  2017 – Supplemental authority regarding Fisher v. Kealoha filed by Young’s attorney.

105-1 Young v Hawaii FRAP28j

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 5,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 28,  2017 – Supplemental authority filed by Young.  Note that the lawyers still have not learned how to write a proper FRAP Rule 28(j) letter.

Supplemental Authority in Young v. Hawaii Filed on April 25-2017

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 24,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 5,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 3,  2017 – This appeal was stayed pending the mandate in Baker v. Kealoha.  This morning the Mandate was issued in Baker.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 31,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 27,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 10,  2017 – Now that Baker v. Kealoha has been remanded back to the district court for a do-over, a motion was filed today to lift the stay in this case. A motion must state whether or not it is opposed or unopposed.  Unsurprisingly, attorney Alan Beck did not indicate in his motion whether or not his motion is opposed or unopposed.  103 – Young Motion to Lift Stay

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 6,  2017 –  Typical of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, this case was stayed 1,505 days after the appeal was filed in favor of an even weaker case, the preliminary injunction appeal in Baker v. Kealoha.

101 – Young v. Hawaii – Order of the Court staying appeal

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 1,  2017 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 18,  2017 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 30,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 22,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 30,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 31,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 5,  2016 –  Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, finally got around to informing the court about the Murphy v. CNMI Government decision.  His notice was technically deficient which seems to be typical of the so called gun-rights attorneys.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 4,  2016 –  Still no 28(j) letter from Baker’s attorneys regarding Murphy v. CNMI Government.  The Murphy decision was published on September 28, 2016.  How hard can it be to write a letter which is limited to 350 words?

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 30,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 31,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 5,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 20,  2016 –  A new filing.

98 – Amicus Curiae State of Hawaii reply to response to motion to file supplemental brief

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 18,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 15,  2016 –  It should come as no surprise that the bickering has been referred to the panel of judges (not yet picked) which will ultimately decide this case.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 12,  2016 –  The Appellees filed a response opposing the motion of Young to file a supplemental brief.  The State of Hawaii filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental Amicus brief.

90 – Response Opposing Young’s Motion

91 – Supplemental Amicus Brief by Hawaii

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 6,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 1,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 27,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 18,  2016 –  Young’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief has been referred to the merits panel.  The state filed an opposition which will also be referred to the merits panel (the panel which will be assigned to hear the case).  84 – Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Motion to file supplemental brief.  86 – Appellee’s response opposing motion to supplement brief.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 10,  2016 –  Young’s attorney filed a motion to file a supplemental brief yesterday.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 3,  2016 –  Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, filed a notice of supplemental authority to the recent 9th Circuit decision Teixeria v. Alameda County.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 11,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 29,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 24,  2016 –  There has been some new activity since my last update.  Young’s attorneys filed a request for judicial notice (Dkt #80) to which the Appellees filed an objection (Dkt # 81).  Long before I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit I was corresponding with an Appellate attorney on the East Coast who suggested several books for me to study.  One of those books he strongly emphasized that I learn was on the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Fortunately, my case did not go to trial as none of my evidence or facts was disputed.  Perhaps Young’s attorneys should have studied the Federal Rules of Evidence, not to mention the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedures.  I suspect that the objection will be sustained.  A court of appeals is not a trial court.  One would think this is something they should have learned in law school.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 22,  2016 –  A Notice of Supplemental Authority to the SCOTUS Caetano decision was filed which is fine and good for a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter but the notice also asks for an immediate injunction which is not allowed in a 28(j) letter.  A competent attorney would know that an injunction is sought typically through a motion and sometimes through a writ.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 11,  2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 4,  2016 –  The Plaintiff’s attorney filed a citation of supplemental authority to Kolbe v Hogan is now worthless given that the 4th Circuit granted the en banc petition.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 29,  2016 –  The Plaintiff’s attorney filed a citation of supplemental authority to Kolbe v Hogan which wasn’t a decision on the merits but a remand back to the district court for further proceedings so it really doesn’t help him much.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 5,  2016 – Nothing new to speak of other than the Plaintiff’s attorney filed yet another notice of supplemental authority which hurts his case.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 4,  2016 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 18,  2015 – Young filed a notice of supplemental authority which is about as far removed from being relevant to this case as is the moon.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 4,  2015 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 30,  2015 – Young filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to State v. Herrmann a decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals which held that switch blades are protected arms under the Second Amendment.  His notice forgot to include the word count limitation statement.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 29,  2015 – Young added a second attorney.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 8,  2015 – Just for laughs I checked the docket and to nobody’s surprise the appeal has not moved an inch.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 1,  2015 – This case will likely remain in limbo until Peruta is decided therefore this is my last update in this case until there is movement in the appeal.

Update May 7, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo.

Update April 18, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo.

Update March 17, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo.

Update February 20, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo and this isn’t the only “right to carry” case being stonewalled by the 9th Circuit.  There is one case that was filed just after the Heller decision which was published in June of 2008 which is still languishing on appeal.

No Significant Update January 20, 2015.

Update September 22, 2014 – Nothing new.  I don’t expect any significant movement until Peruta v. San Diego is resolved.

Update September 2, 2014 – Notice of Supplemental Authority to Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014) was filed on 8/27/2014.

Update July 22, 2014 – Not much new since the last update.

07/02/2014 65 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Joseph Kalani Kamelamela for Appellees County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri. Date of service: 07/02/2014. [9154890] (JK)
07/03/2014 66 Attorney Michael Joseph Udovic in 12-17808 substituted by Attorney Joseph Kamelamela in 12-17808 [9155058] (CW)

Update April 29, 2014 – The State of Hawaii adds a couple of lawyers.

Update March 29, 2014 – Notice of supplemental authorities filed regarding Baker v. Kealoha.  Curiously, the cover letter states that this appeal (Young) is unopposed.

Update March 28, 2014 – Notice of supplemental authorities filed regarding Jackson v. San Francisco.

Update March 16, 2014 – Still very little activity in this case.  I’ve posted an update to the court docket below.

Update May 24, 2013 – Reply Brief was filed.

Update May 12, 2013 – Young v. Hawaii filed a Supplemental Brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 10, 2013.  Click here to read. The Opening brief was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 24, 2012 – George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808.  This is an Open Carry case, of sorts, Young seeks to carry openly and concealed.   Here is a link to the district court case.  I wish him luck.

In order to access the individual court filings below you will need a Federal PACER account.

Michael Joseph Udovic, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-961-8251
[COR LD NTC Dep County Counsel]
Office of the Corporation Counsel
County of Hawaii
Suite 325
Hilo Lagoon Center
101 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720 HILO COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, as a sub-agency of the County of Hawaii
Defendant – Appellee,Kimberly Angay, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-961-8251
[COR LD NTC Dep County Counsel]
(see above)

Michael Joseph Udovic, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-961-8251
[COR LD NTC Dep County Counsel]
(see above) HARRY S. KUBOJIRI, in his capacity as Chief of Police
Defendant – Appellee,Kimberly Angay, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-961-8251
[COR LD NTC Dep County Counsel]
(see above)

Michael Joseph Udovic, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-961-8251
[COR LD NTC Dep County Counsel]
(see above) JOHN DOES, 1-25
Defendant – Appellee,  JANE DOES, 1-25
Defendant – Appellee,  DOE CORPORATIONS, 1-5
Defendant – Appellee,  DOE ENTITIES, 1-5
Defendant – Appellee, ——————————STATE OF HAWAII
Amicus Curiae,Girard Douglas Lau, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
AGHI – OFFICE OF THE HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen St.
Honolulu, HI 96813

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF HAWAII; NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii; DAVID M. LOUIE, in his capacity as State Attorney General; COUNTY OF HAWAII, as a sub-agency of the State of Hawaii; WILLIAM P. KENOI, in his capacity as Mayor of the County of Hawaii; HILO COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, as a sub-agency of the County of Hawaii; HARRY S. KUBOJIRI, in his capacity as Chief of Police; JOHN DOES, 1-25; JANE DOES, 1-25; DOE CORPORATIONS, 1-5; DOE ENTITIES, 1-5,

Defendants – Appellees.

12/24/2012   1  18 pg, 226.66 KB DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant George K. Young Jr. opening brief due 03/25/2013. Appellees Neil Abercrombie, County of Hawaii, Doe Corporations, Doe Entities, Hilo County Police Department, Jane Does, John Does, William P. Kenoi, Harry S. Kubojiri, David M. Louie and State of Hawaii answering brief due 04/25/2013. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [8451772] (RT) 01/02/2013   2  3 pg, 82.03 KB Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Alan Alexander Beck for Appellant George K. Young, Jr.. Date of service: 01/02/2013. [8458826] (AAB) 01/02/2013   3 Added attorney Alan Alexander Beck for George K. Young Jr., in case 12-17808. [8458834] (HH) 01/02/2013   4  5 pg, 174.22 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 01/02/2013. [8458849]–[COURT UPDATE: Attaached corrected PDF of questionnaire to correct viewing error (blank). Resent NDA. 01/04/2013 by RY] (AAB) 02/11/2013   5 Case rejected from Circuit Mediation Program. [8508364] [12-17808, 12-17845, 12-35748, 12-35947, 12-35976, 12-36011] (LW) 02/16/2013   6  54 pg, 460.79 KB Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George K. Young, Jr.. Date of service: 02/16/2013. [8516981]–[COURT UPDATE: Replaced PDF w/corrected version (footnotes), resent notice. 02/20/2013 by ASW] (AAB) 02/19/2013   7 Filed Appellant George K. Young, Jr. paper copies of excerpts of record in 1 volume(s). [8518753] (RH) 02/20/2013   8  2 pg, 83.12 KB Filed clerk order: The opening brief [6] submitted by George K. Young, Jr. 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: blue. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [8520660] (RH) 02/22/2013   9 Received 7 paper copies of Opening brief [6] filed by George K. Young, Jr.. [8523542] (SD) 02/25/2013   10  3 pg, 162.15 KB Filed (ECF) Errata to Opening brief ([6] Brief Submitted for Review (ECF Filing) ). Filed by Appellant George K. Young, Jr.. Date of service: 02/25/2012. [8524232] (AAB) 02/28/2013   11  32 pg, 293.24 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/28/2013. [8531147] (AAB) 03/03/2013   12  4 pg, 88.18 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/03/2013. [8534393] (AAB) 03/11/2013   13  6 pg, 239.23 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/11/2003. [8544214] (AAB) 03/16/2013   14  22 pg, 452.65 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/16/2013. [8553545] (AAB) 03/21/2013   15  35 pg, 673.3 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/21/2013. [8558893] (AAB) 03/27/2013   16  14 pg, 5.14 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/27/2013. [8565862] (AAB) 03/31/2013   17  40 pg, 4.28 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/31/2013. [8571097] (AAB) 04/02/2013   18 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Answering Brief by Appellant George K. Young, Jr. and Appellees Neil Abercrombie, County of Hawaii, Doe Corporations, Doe Entities, Hilo County Police Department, Jane Does, John Does, William P. Kenoi, Harry S. Kubojiri, David M. Louie and State of Hawaii. New requested due date is 05/24/2013 at 05:00 pm. [8573942] (MJU) 04/02/2013   19 Streamlined request [18] by Appellees Neil Abercrombie, County of Hawaii, Doe Corporations, Doe Entities, Hilo County Police Department, Jane Does, John Does, William P. Kenoi, Harry S. Kubojiri, David M. Louie and State of Hawaii to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellees Neil Abercrombie, County of Hawaii, Doe Corporations, Doe Entities, Hilo County Police Department, Jane Does, John Does, William P. Kenoi, Harry S. Kubojiri, David M. Louie and State of Hawaii answering brief due 05/24/2013. The optional reply brief is due 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [8574220] (LN) 04/02/2013   20  12 pg, 91.41 KB Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Hawaii, Hilo County Police Department, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri Motion to strike whole of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Notices of Supplemental Authority Filed February 28, 2013, March 3, 2013, March 11, 2013, March 16, 2013, March 21, 2013, March 27, 2013 and March 31, 2013. Date of service: 04/02/2013. [8574404] (MJU) 04/03/2013   21  1 pg, 60.81 KB Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Hawaii, Hilo County Police Department, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri Correspondence: filing of expedited request for extension of time to file its Answering Brief. Date of service: 04/03/2013 [8576517] (MJU) 04/10/2013   22 COURT DELETED INCORRECT/DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [24]. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Motion to file supplemental brief and Response to motion (motion to strike portion or whole of document). Date of service: 04/10/2013. [8585168] (AAB) 04/10/2013   23  30 pg, 5.37 MB COURT ENTERED FILING. Submitted (ECF) Supplemental Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George K. Young, Jr.. Date of service: 04/10/2013. [8585987] (RY) 04/10/2013   24  35 pg, 4.37 MB COURT ENTERED FILING to correct entry [22]. Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Motion to file supplemental brief and Response to motion (motion to strike portion or whole of document). Date of service: 04/10/2013. [8586020] (RY) 04/12/2013   25  1 pg, 23.37 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CAG): The appellees’ motion to strike, the appellant’s response thereto, the appellant’s motion to file a supplemental brief, the proposed supplemental brief, and shall be referred for disposition to the panel that considers the merits of the appeal. [8587769] (AF) 04/12/2013   26  7 pg, 78.56 KB Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri reply to response (,motion to file supplemental brief). Date of service: 04/12/2013. [8589034] (MJU) 04/14/2013   27  39 pg, 541.96 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/14/2013. [8589082] (AAB) 04/14/2013   28  3 pg, 159.5 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Correspondence: Notice of Related Case in the Event that Defendants’ motion to strike is denied and Mr. Young’s Supplemental Brief is approved.. Date of service: 04/14/2013 [8589092] (AAB) 04/22/2013   29  11 pg, 243.71 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case This motion asks that this case be heard by the same panel as San Francisco v. Jackson.. Date of service: 04/22/2013. [8598087] (AAB) 04/28/2013   30  13 pg, 254.37 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. reply to response (,motion to hear case with other case). Date of service: 04/28/2013. [8607420] (AAB) 04/30/2013   31  1 pg, 23.78 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KN): The “motion to align or expedite” appeal Nos. 12-17803 and 12-17808 is denied. The answering brief in appeal No. 12-17808 remains due May 24, 2013 and the optional reply remains due 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [8609677] (TSP) 05/24/2013   32  49 pg, 485.69 KB Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri. Date of service: 05/24/2013. [8643295]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected brief. Resent NDA. 05/28/2013 by RY] (MJU) 05/24/2013   33  62 pg, 3.22 MB Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellees County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri. Date of service: 05/24/2013. [8643305] (MJU) 05/29/2013   34  2 pg, 86.11 KB Filed clerk order: The answering brief [32] submitted by County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri 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 ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [33] submitted by County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri. 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. [8645933] (WP) 05/31/2013   35  71 pg, 3.75 MB Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by State of Hawaii. Date of service: 05/31/2013. [8651273] (GDL) 05/31/2013   36  4 pg, 216.57 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Motion to strike whole of State of Hawaii is a named Defendant in this appeal and belated filed a “amicus” brief in violation of the FRAP. They were afforded a Answering Brief and declined to file one.. Date of service: 05/31/2013. [8651277] (AAB) 06/01/2013   37  36 pg, 561.31 KB Submitted (ECF) Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George K. Young, Jr.. Date of service: 06/01/2013. [8651308] (AAB) 06/03/2013   38  2 pg, 85.69 KB Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [35] submitted by State of Hawaii 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: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [8652294] (WP) 06/03/2013   39  1 pg, 82.47 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: WP): The Clerk order filing the State of Hawaii’s brief is vacated. The filing of the brief will be determined by a later order. [8652330] (WP) 06/03/2013   40  2 pg, 85.62 KB Filed clerk order: The reply brief [37] submitted by George K. Young, Jr. 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: gray. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. [8652349] (WP) 06/03/2013   41 Received 7 paper copies of Answering brief [32] filed by County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri. [8652606] (SD) 06/03/2013   42  1 pg, 182.17 KB Filed Appellees County of Hawaii, William P. Kenoi and Harry S. Kubojiri excerpts of record [33] in 1 volume. [Edited 06/19/2013 by wp to reflect the correct party] [8654264] (WP) 06/03/2013   43  1 pg, 82.54 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: WP): The court’s June 4, 2013 notice attached to docket entry number 42 is vacated as being issued in error. [8654592] (WP) 06/04/2013   44 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae State of Hawaii. [8655006] (LA) 06/04/2013   45  8 pg, 310.35 KB Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae State of Hawaii response opposing motion (,motion to strike portion or whole of document). Date of service: 06/04/2013. [8655089] (GDL) 06/04/2013   46  7 pg, 174.08 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. reply to response (). Date of service: 06/04/2013. [8655154] (AAB) 06/05/2013   47 Received 7 paper copies of Reply brief [37] filed by George K. Young, Jr.. [8656415] (SD) 06/21/2013   48  1 pg, 22.87 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GSS): The appellant’s opposed motion to strike the amicus brief submitted by State of Hawaii is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case. [8676823] (AF) 06/27/2013   49 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus brief [35] filed by State of Hawaii. [8683914] (DB) 11/07/2013   50  2 pg, 64.24 KB Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae State of Hawaii citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/07/2013. [8854624] (GDL) 11/08/2013   51  46 pg, 521.86 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant George K. Young, Jr. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/08/2013. [8855897] (AAB)

 

---

---

---

District Court Docket

1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK Young v. State of Hawaii et al
HELEN GILLMOR, presiding
BARRY M. KURREN, referral
Date filed: 06/12/2012
Date terminated: 11/29/2012
Date of last filing: 12/26/2012 

History

 

Doc. No.	Dates	Description
56	Filed & Entered:   12/26/2012	Attorney Appeal Packet
	Filed & Entered:   12/24/2012	Advisory Entry
54	Filed: 12/24/2012 Entered: 12/26/2012	USCA Case Number
55	Filed: 12/24/2012 Entered: 12/26/2012	USCA Scheduling Order
52	Filed & Entered:   12/23/2012 Terminated: 12/24/2012	Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
47	Filed & Entered:   12/21/2012 Terminated: 12/24/2012	Motion to Substitute Attorney
51	Filed & Entered:   12/21/2012 Terminated: 12/24/2012	Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
49	Filed: 12/17/2012 Entered: 12/21/2012	Transcript Designation and Ordering Form
50	Filed: 12/17/2012 Entered: 12/21/2012	USCA Appeal Fees
48	Filed: 12/14/2012 Entered: 12/21/2012	Notice of Appeal
53	Filed: 12/14/2012 Entered: 12/24/2012	Civil Appeals Docketing Statement
44	Filed & Entered:   11/30/2012	Terminate Hearings
42	Filed & Entered:   11/29/2012	Order on Motion to Dismiss
43	Filed & Entered:   11/29/2012	Clerk’s Judgment
41	Filed & Entered:   11/08/2012	Set Deadlines/Hearings
40	Filed: 10/15/2012 Entered: 10/18/2012	Certificate of Service
39	Filed & Entered:   10/12/2012	Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
37	Filed: 10/10/2012 Entered: 10/11/2012	Scheduling Conference Statement
38	Filed: 10/10/2012 Entered: 10/11/2012	Certificate of Service
36	Filed & Entered:   10/05/2012	Scheduling Conference Statement
35	Filed & Entered:   10/04/2012	Scheduling Conference Statement
33	Filed & Entered:   10/01/2012	Statement
34	Filed & Entered:   10/01/2012	Reply
32	Filed: 09/10/2012 Entered: 09/11/2012	Certificate of Service
29	Filed: 09/06/2012 Entered: 09/10/2012	Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
30	Filed: 09/06/2012 Entered: 09/10/2012	Certificate of Service
28	Filed & Entered:   08/23/2012	Link
27	Filed & Entered:   08/21/2012	Notice of Appearance
25	Filed & Entered:   08/16/2012 Terminated: 11/29/2012	Motion to Dismiss
	Filed & Entered:   08/13/2012	Advisory Entry
23	Filed & Entered:   08/10/2012 Terminated: 11/29/2012	Motion to Dismiss
24	Filed & Entered:   08/10/2012	Set Deadlines/Hearings
22	Filed: 08/03/2012 Entered: 08/07/2012	Order Reassigning Case
20	Filed: 08/02/2012 Entered: 08/03/2012	Waiver of Service Executed
21	Filed: 08/02/2012 Entered: 08/03/2012	Waiver of Service Executed
15	Filed: 07/27/2012 Entered: 07/30/2012	Waiver of Service Executed
16	Filed: 07/27/2012 Entered: 07/30/2012	Waiver of Service Executed
18	Filed: 07/26/2012 Entered: 07/30/2012	Summons Returned Executed
19	Filed: 07/26/2012 Entered: 07/30/2012	Summons Returned Executed
14	Filed: 06/29/2012 Entered: 07/02/2012	Waiver of Service Executed
13	Filed: 06/27/2012 Entered: 06/30/2012	Waiver of Service Executed
8	Filed: 06/22/2012 Entered: 06/25/2012	Summons Returned Executed
9	Filed: 06/22/2012 Entered: 06/25/2012	Summons Returned Executed
10	Filed: 06/22/2012 Entered: 06/25/2012	Summons Returned Executed
11	Filed: 06/22/2012 Entered: 06/25/2012	Summons Returned Executed
1	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Complaint
2	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Set Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
3	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Filing Fee Received
4	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Summons Issued
5	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Summons Issued
6	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Summons Issued
7	Filed: 06/12/2012 Entered: 06/13/2012	Summons Issued