Richards v. Prieto

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

• April 11, 2014: opposition to request for en banc filed
• March 5, 2014: Following Peruta, 9th Circuit reverses and remands

(Link to be added later)

In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San
Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the  
district court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for
summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes
on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

• December 6, 2012 Oral arguments scheduled before the 9th Circuit

• December 20, 2011 9th Circuit stays the case for a decision of the en banc panel of Nordyke.
• October 25, 2011 Richards reply filed with the 9th Circuit.
• September 23, 2011 Yolo response filed with the 9th Circuit.
• August 24, 2011 Opening brief filed with 9th Circuit.
• May 16, 2011 Appealed to 9th Circuit
• May 16, 2011 Judge England ruled in favor of Sheriff Prieto.

A notable part of the opinion:

Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed
weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are
still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person,
load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur
in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially
burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and keep arms. Therefore, rational
basis review applies.

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.

• Feb 24, 2011 Plaintiffs file response opposing defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement.

• Feb 4, 2011 Oral Arguments delayed until March 10, 2011 at 2:00 pm

• 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.

• November 18, 2010 Defendant Answer to Second Amended Complaint and demands Jury trial

• November 4, 2010 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Filed against County of Yolo, and Sheriff Ed Prieto

• October 27, 2010: STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for filing Second Amended Complaint

• 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 21, 2009: Sacramento filed a Motion to Continue or Suspend Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Points and Authorities claim that discovery is needed to ascertain standing. As standing is generally a matter of law in this case, this is a somewhat unusual request.

• August 18, 2009: Pretrial Scheduling Order entered.

• 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.

• May 5, 2009: Complaint filed.

Calguns Discussion Threads

• Richards v Prieto MSJ filed (Carry) - January, 2011
• CGF:Sykes becomes Richards v. Prieto/Yolo - October, 2010
• CCW: SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California - May, 2009

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