Drake (NJ carry permits) files for cert with SCOTUS

[JimDandy]

Isn't CA9 on a timer? X number of days to en banc, then off to SCOTUS with it if applicable?

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Isn't CA9 on a timer? X number of days to en banc, then off to SCOTUS with it if applicable?

No, it doesn't appear so. Michel & Assoc. published a flow chart for the whole en banc procedure, and as Murphy's Law would have it, the reality of the situation is more complicated than their flow chart.

Every entry on the flow chart does have a time limit associated with it, but we're stuck on the entry node to the flow chart, because the 9th haven't decided on the whole intervenor thing wrt the Attorney General. Once they've made that decision (which appears to have no time limit), and the AG then makes the en banc request, everything is timed from that point forward, unless some exceptional stuff happens.

The 9th is unique in that it has one of the judges serve as en banc coordinator, and that coordinator does have the power to halt the en banc process for "good cause" (sounds like the wording that got this whole thing started ) for indefinite periods of time. So if the aforementioned exceptional stuff happens, we could see more delays, but other than that, once the AG's request is dealt with we're on the clock.

There are many theories about why they haven't already dealt with her request, and as you probably know, they include waiting to see if SCOTUS takes Drake...

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Interesting observation from SCOTUSblog today:

Earlier this week I remarked that all of this week’s grants came from among the ranks of the relists, and noticed similar instances earlier this year. But as the eagle-eyed Hashim Mooppan pointed out to me, the relist streak has been far longer and more consistent.

Then goes on to speculate that re-listing may now be in practice a provisional decision to grant.

[KyJim]

To add a bit of detail from ScotusBlog:

Over the last nine Conferences, the Court has granted a dozen cases for argument next Term, each one of which was relisted at least once . . .

If indeed the Court has adopted a policy of relisting cases before granting, it may be akin to a “stop, look, and listen” after a provisional decision to grant – intended to give the Justices and their clerks additional time to review grant candidates for vehicle problems or other concerns. Maybe the Justices decided after dismissing three cases as improvidently granted this Term that they need one last check before giving a case the nod . . .

So, if their speculation is accurate, it's good news.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Looks like once again it's not on either the "granted" or "denied" list?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...14zor_6k47.pdf

[speedrrracer]

Some have said it's been re-listed again for this Friday, May 2, but that is not reflected in the latest orders. Seems fair to say it's in limbo.

[HarrySchell]

It's still alive.

[Jim March]

It's been relisted all right - another week, same time same channel, popcorn optional.

[Librarian]

The SCOTUS page for Drake is http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13-827.htm

Its last entry is "Apr 28 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 2, 2014."

[dustind]

When will we likely hear what happened on May 2nd?

Edit: From Scotus Blog: On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the May 2 Conference, followed by one or more opinions in argued cases at 10:00. We will begin live blogging at this link starting at 9:15.

[HarrySchell]

"Yesterday the Ninth Circuit panel issued an order commanding the San Diego Sheriff to inform the court as to his position on California's motion to intervene, and to inform the court as to whether he thinks the case is moot, given his decision to start issuing permits.

As I recall, he said he'd start issuing permits once the case is final, so we have rather a problem in circular reasoning. If the court finds the case is moot, then it will become moot, even if it were not before."

If I am understanding "mootness" properly, Gore could take that position since he has changed his process to accept self-defense as good cause.

If then the 9th decides Peruta is "moot", the ruling disappears as law and Lost Angles, SF, etc. can continue on their current course. May issue is may issue, regardless, and Richards and Baker, as they depend on Peruta, would fall also.

The split among the Circuits would be partially repaired, which reduces the need for SCOTUS to take Drake. The anti's win and we are back where we started. Peruta never happened.

Not good.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...movement_i.php

[Jim March]

If then the 9th decides Peruta is "moot", the ruling disappears as law and Lost Angles, SF, etc. can continue on their current course. May issue is may issue, regardless, and Richards and Baker, as they depend on Peruta, would fall also.

Um, that's not what I'm hearing on Calguns. The reason lawyers like Chuck Michel are pushing the "mootness" angle is that it would shut down further appeals and leave the state AG's office with no way to request an en banc hearing or take it to the Supremes. That would leave it as good case law in the 9th Circuit, opening challenges to all the rest of the counties. It would also preserve the circuit split between the Peruta and Drake cases making Drake look better for a Supreme Court ruling and if THAT happens Peruta really is moot because a carry right would be the law of the land coast to coast and depending on the ruling we could maybe do an open carry rally in front of Bloomberg's house in NY.

[HarrySchell]

Ah, Jim, thanks very much for your perspective. Not a lawyer, and I summarized the discussion at Dave Hardy's page, which was pessimistic. I didn't know Michel was pushing this idea.

Visited Michel's page and didn't see anything, and I didn't see that anyone at Calguns had posted it or commented. I posted the thread there.

It sounds, with your view, like Gore has about nowhere to go that can hurt us, but those with better minds than mine can comment about that.

[HarrySchell]

Found what I missed at Calguns. Hopefully I am wrong.

[maestro pistolero]

As long as Drake is in (possible) play for certiorari, I wonder if the 9th will issue the Peruta mandate, or hold it pending Drake.

[speedrrracer]

As long as Drake is in (possible) play for certiorari, I wonder if the 9th will issue the Peruta mandate, or hold it pending Drake.

I wonder the same thing. esqappellate or someone more knowledgeable than me from MDShooters said there is no race condition, yet we continue to see both sides kicking the can down the road.

[press1280]

I think SCOTUS is waiting for the 9th decide on en banc, and I think it'll be re-listed again this Monday. They relisted another case 20 times already; so obviously when they see a case they want they'll re-list as long as it takes for the lower courts to make up their mind.
CA9 is prodding the SD sheriff to make a move, preferably to change his policy and issue CCWs for self defense. That may sink the AG's bid to intervene and make it even more of an uphill climb for Richards/Baker to get en banc.

[HarrySchell]

And then Peruta is the standard within the Circuit, the stay lifted. Lost Angles would have to comply.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by press1280

That may sink the AG's bid to intervene and make it even more of an uphill climb for Richards/Baker to get en banc.

How will it make it more difficult to get en banc? Both Richards and Baker have already asked for en banc, those requests must be voted on by the 9th, no matter what happens with the AG or anything else in the world. Are you thinking something political?

Originally Posted by HarrySchell

And then Peruta is the standard within the Circuit, the stay lifted. Lost Angles would have to comply.

Isn't Peruta already the standard? It's good law and citeable anywhere in the US of A. As for LA / SF complying, that won't happen anytime soon, even if Peruta is upheld en banc or all the current petitioners for en banc are denied, at least for SF, and perhaps LA. Chuck Michel said to the Cam & Co show that SF has told his office they won't comply with Peruta, and so Michel is already preparing for suing SF (et probably al) all the way up the judicial food chain.

[KyJim]

Isn't Peruta already the standard? It's good law and citeable anywhere in the US of A?

It's not binding until final. You may technically be able to cite it but it's not going to carry a lot of weight until the circuit court opinion is final.

[JimDandy]

Isn't Peruta already the standard? It's good law and citeable anywhere in the US of A.

Kinda sorta but not really is my guess. As KyJim has pointed out it's not final. Other than that, it's also a lot more hefty in the CA9 where it's apparently already been used by the CA9 in other opinions.

Chuck Michel said to the Cam & Co show that SF has told his office they won't comply with Peruta, and so Michel is already preparing for suing SF (et probably al) all the way up the judicial food chain.

Tell me that's not a huge waste of money. Maybe I've got this wrong... Peruta just made carry a civil right. If you sue the government for violating your civil rights and win, they often not only have to pay you your court costs, but you get punitive/reward/extra money as well? So the SF sheriff is going to be writing a huge number of checks to residents of San Francisco paid for by a lot more residents of San Francisco?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

....If you sue the government for violating your civil rights and win, they often not only have to pay you your court costs, but you get punitive/reward/extra money as well? So the SF sheriff is going to be writing a huge number of checks to residents of San Francisco paid for by a lot more residents of San Francisco?

Yes and no. I'm not entirely sure about the 9th Circuit, but in the 8th:
Punitive damages are unavailable against a city, county, or state;
Punitive damages are available against an actor in his individual capacity.

However, punitive damages could also drive an individual actor into bankruptcy, rendering said punitive damages uncollectible.

[JimDandy]

The first thing that popped into my head was:
Why SPD is being at least partially run by the DOJ with a court document found here

I get a little lost going back and forth between the two pages trying to figure out what happened, but it sounds like the 150K settlement is coming from the City, not the officer(s) who both won and lost some of their qualified immunity claims.

[speedrrracer]

Not sure about punitive damages; I doubt they're available, but would love to hear from someone who knows for sure.

What I think is available are legal fees. I'm pretty sure if, e.g., SF disobeys Peruta, gets sued, and loses, SF will be paying the legal fees for the winner(s). It's not the billions SF should be paying (for starters) for violating your civil rights, but every little bit helps.

[maestro pistolero]

I think there may be more consequences than just legal fees to open defiance of a court order in a civil rights matter, but I'll let someone more qualified than me chime in.