Difference between revisions of "Richards v. Prieto"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Status)
(Status)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
==Status==
 
==Status==
 +
'''FUTURE EVENTS'''
 +
 +
February 10, 2011 - Oral arguments are scheduled at 2PM on in Courtroom 7 of the Sacramento
 +
Eastern District Federal District Court - 501 I Street, Suite. 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814.
  
 
The case is case number 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM. [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html Docket] from RECAP.  This case was filed in [http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/ U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California].
 
The case is case number 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM. [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html Docket] from RECAP.  This case was filed in [http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/ U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California].

Revision as of 17:19, 14 January 2011

Richards v. Prieto (formerly Sykes v. McGinness)

Richards v. Prieto is a case challenging the carry license issuing policies in Yolo County. The case was filed in 2009 under the caption Sykes v. McGinness. McGinness was the sheriff of Sacramento county and was compelled by this lawsuit to issue carry licenses for self defense. Therefore the complaint against sheriff McGiness and Sacramento County have been dismissed. The case has been renamed and litigation will continue against Yolo County and Sheriff Preito.

Adam Richards, Brett Stewart,  
Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., 
and The Calguns Foundation, Inc.,

	     Plaintiffs, 

	     v.
 
 Ed Prieto, and County of Yolo, 

	     Defendants. 

Palmer v. District of Columbia is a sister case challenging the District of Columbia's ban of the carrying of firearms for self defense.

Status

FUTURE EVENTS

February 10, 2011 - Oral arguments are scheduled at 2PM on in Courtroom 7 of the Sacramento 
Eastern District Federal District Court - 501 I Street, Suite. 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814. 

The case is case number 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM. Docket from RECAP. This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

  • January 13, 2011 Motion for summary judgement filed. Oral argument is scheduled at 2PM on February 10, 2011 in Courtroom 7 of the Sacramento Eastern District Federal District Court - 501 I Street, Suite. 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814.
  • October 22, 2010 The action against Sheriff McGinness has been dismissed. The case against Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto continues under a new name Richards v. Prieto
  • October 22, 2010 Plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend and a hearing on that motion will take place December 16, 2010
  • June 28, 2010: McDonald decision released. 60-day countdown as directed by Judge England starts before a refiling of MSJ's on either side.
  • April 13, 2010: In his written order, Judge England has continued the Plaintiff's MSJ until 60 days after McDonald.
  • September 1, 2009: In his written order, Judge England has continued the Plaintiff's MSJ until resolution of Nordyke.
  • August 27, 2009: at a hearing this date, Judge England granted a 60-day delay before hearing the MSJ, to approximately the end of November, 2009. New exact date TBD.
  • August 26, 2009: The plaintiffs filed an opposition to Sacramento's motion to continue or stay plaintiff's MSJ.
  • August 6, 2009: Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Summary Judgment. Hearing date for the motion will be Thursday, September 24, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 7 of the United State District Court for the Eastern California, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
  • July, 15 2009: Yolo County entered an answer.
  • July, 2009: Yolo County requested and received an extension of time for response until July 15, 2009.
  • June 3, 2009: Replies from the Sheriff and Sacramento County, both from the same law firm and both demanding trial by jury.

Calguns Discussion Thread

CGF:Sykes becomes Richards v. Prieto/Yolo

CCW: SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California

Intent

  1. Declaratory relief that the “good moral character” and “good cause” provisions of California Penal Code § 12050 are unconstitutional either on their face and/or as applied to bar applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their “good cause” for seeking a handgun carry permit;
  2. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or articipation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing the “good moral character” and “good cause” requirements of California Penal Code § 12050 against handgun carry permit applicants who seek the permit for self-defense and are otherwise qualified to obtain a handgun carry permit under that section