Flanagan v. Harris 2023 Feb 08 Dismissed as moot

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

that is correct. That is really good for Young. The chance of en banc being denied has gone way up

Sounds good! Thanks!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

that is correct. That is really good for Young. The chance of en banc being denied has gone way up

FWIW I agree with this assessment. It would make sense for CA9 to deal with Flanagan en banc if they're doing to deal with Young en banc. If Young isn't going to go en banc, there's no reason to take Flanagan to it directly.

Trump has nominated people for 5 of the 6 open seats on CA9. If CA9 takes Young en banc and we lose, we'll appeal to SCOTUS where we'll win for the entire nation.

If CA9 takes Young en banc and we win, we've just solidified our win by the opinion being by an en banc panel (stronger precedent), and the antis won't dare appeal it to SCOTUS, esp since RBG may be replaced by that time.

Time for folks in non-green counties (and folks from green counties if they just want to tweak the noses of antis ) to pick out a suitable rig for some LOC meet ups -- we'll party like it was 2010, hitting Starbucks, California Pizza Kitchen.... (it was UOC back then)

[CDMichel]

Don't get your hopes up folks.
IMHO reading tea leaves this means that Young will simply be vacated by the 9th Circuit as inconsistent with Peruta without all the trouble of an en banc hearing.
Chief Judge Thomas hates 2A. He is not going to let Young stand.
Hope I'm wrong. Meanwhile, the NYC SCOTUS case is more important than ever.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CDMichel

Don't get your hopes up folks.
IMHO reading tea leaves this means that Young will simply be vacated by the 9th Circuit as inconsistent with Peruta without all the trouble of an en banc hearing.
Chief Judge Thomas hates 2A. He is not going to let Young stand.
Hope I'm wrong. Meanwhile, the NYC SCOTUS case is more important than ever.

That will just cost us 1 more year (say "Goodbye!" to RBG), but the 7 other remaining May Issue states (including CA) will happy after our side appeals any Young loss to SCOTUS.

[BryMan92]

If I am reading this right, they want an en ban to hear the initial appeal? I am very confused by this case.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by BryMan92

If I am reading this right, they want an en ban to hear the initial appeal? I am very confused by this case.

Yep, and en banc got denied so it's back to the normal route of a 3-judge panel and then loser of that can ask for en banc.

[CDMichel]

Well shut my mouth: En banc review was granted today. The 3 judge panel ruling is now not citable as precedent per the Court's Order.

[stag6.8]

Originally Posted by CDMichel

Well shut my mouth: En banc review was granted today. The 3 judge panel ruling is now not citable as precedent per the Court's Order.

Ok so now it's interesting..since young was granted and Flanagan denied...what's the possible out comes?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by stag6.8

Ok so now it's interesting..since young was granted and Flanagan denied...what's the possible out comes?

Best to take this up over in the Young case thread rather than confuse folks about which case you're talking about.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1424391

[Paladin]

Anyone have a link to where we can follow the proceedings in this case?

[Odd_Ball]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Anyone have a link to where we can follow the proceedings in this case?

I think this might be it (now Flanagan v Becerra):

http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

[pacrat]

Latest from CRPA in the Firing Line. Is that the state has appealed to have Flanagan and Young heard as a joint hearing.

[lostinsd82]

Originally Posted by CDMichel

Well shut my mouth: En banc review was granted today. The 3 judge panel ruling is now not citable as precedent per the Court's Order.

Just chiming in to thank you guys for everything you do for all of us

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Odd_Ball

I think this might be it (now Flanagan v Becerra):

http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

Thanks!

Originally Posted by pacrat

Latest from CRPA in the Firing Line. Is that the state has appealed to have Flanagan and Young heard as a joint hearing.

Didn't see anything related at: https://crpa.org/publications/firing-line/

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Thanks!

Didn't see anything related at: https://crpa.org/publications/firing-line/

I was quoting from the litigation index in the March/April, 2019..........Firing Line..........magazine.

[Paladin]

Any news re. Flanagan?

When do we expect the date for the 3-judge orals to be set?

I know it's a late hour and I'm tired, but was I dreaming or didn't someone on our side ask SCOTUS to reach down and take Flanagan directly, bypassing the 3-judge appeal and potential en banc and full court en banc appeals by CA9? Or am I thinking of another case, like Young?

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Any news re. Flanagan?

When do we expect the date for the 3-judge orals to be set?

I know it's a late hour and I'm tired, but was I dreaming or didn't someone on our side ask SCOTUS to reach down and take Flanagan directly, bypassing the 3-judge appeal and potential en banc and full court en banc appeals by CA9? Or am I thinking of another case, like Young?

I haven't done anything in Young so its got to be a different case.

You might be thinking of the amicus brief I filed on behalf of George at the supreme court in the NRA case.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

You might be thinking of the amicus brief I filed on behalf of George at the supreme court in the NRA case.

Which was completely awesome in my opinion. Thank you to you, and to Mr. Young for his endless service to this country.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I haven't done anything in Young so its got to be a different case.

You might be thinking of the amicus brief I filed on behalf of George at the supreme court in the NRA case.

Wolfie:
I believe Paladin was referencing my posts #294-297. Regarding what I had read in the CRPA-FIRING LINE on their current litigation pages.

Sorry, I always clip addresses then circulate my Firing Line and National Rifleman magazines to local doctors offices. So no longer have recent copies.

But the Quote from CRPA was under the heading of "Flanagan v Becerra".

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and the State has filed a petition to have the case heard initially by an 11-judge "en banc" panel along with the "Young v Hawaii" lawsuit.

Again, that was from the March-April 2019 issue of Firing Line.

I have no idea if this is a good thing for OUR SIDE or not? Typically Ninth Circuit "en banc" and 2A when combined. Don't bode well for us.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Wolfie:
I believe Paladin was referencing my posts #294-297. Regarding what I had read in the CRPA-FIRING LINE on their current litigation pages.

Sorry, I always clip addresses then circulate my Firing Line and National Rifleman magazines to local doctors offices. So no longer have recent copies.

But the Quote from CRPA was under the heading of "Flanagan v Becerra".



Again, that was from the March-April 2019 issue of Firing Line.

I have no idea if this is a good thing for OUR SIDE or not? Typically Ninth Circuit "en banc" and 2A when combined. Don't bode well for us.

Yep, that was it.

Does Flanagan have a docket page somewhere on the CA9 website?

[pacrat]

The more I ponder the happenings, or lack thereof, in Flanagan. In light of the CRPA quote, the more confused I get.

Quote:
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and the State has filed a petition to have the case heard initially by an 11-judge "en banc" panel along with the "Young v Hawaii" lawsuit.

How can "the State" [Ca] petition to have two cases with different plaintiffs in different states against two different defendants combined in one en banc hearing?

Especially since en banc hearing has already been denied in
Flanagan, on 2-7-19 ?

Flanagan has CRPA as co-plaintiff. C. Michel is Pres, and Attorney for CRPA. The CRPA quote is undoubtedly known to Michel.

Yet "wolfwood" is unaware of any motion to combine Flanagan with Young.

WTF?

[Paladin]

FWIW here's a link to CA9's page for pending en banc cases (think Young), and links to those case's dockets. Note how for Young they do not list judges selected for the 11-judge en banc panel.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/

Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 896 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 8, 2019

Status: Stayed pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's dismissal of plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the County of Hawaii's denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.

Holding: Not yet decided

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Pacrat,

California filed a petition to have this matter heard initially en banc in the case that Young v. Hawaii was heard en banc: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ng-En-Banc.pdf

On pages 13-14 of that petition you will see our position on that petition.

The Ninth Circuit denied California's petition: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...En-Banc_56.pdf

All filings in Flanagan are available here: http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

[pacrat]

Thanks Sean.


All this hurry up and wait is frustrating. Hopefully all this holding of cases waiting for SCOTUS to rule in NY. Will have a positive outcome for us here in the 9th.

[J.D.Allen]

So, In a nutshell, everything except Young is on hold for the NY SCOTUS case?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by J.D.Allen

So, In a nutshell, everything except Young is on hold for the NY SCOTUS case?

Per the quote I have in post #304 above, Young is stayed pending a SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA.

We do not know yet the effect of NYSRPA will have on the Rogers cert petition, which is scheduled for a SCOTUS conference today. We may find out next Tues (Monday is Memorial Day).

[J.D.Allen]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Per the quote I have in post #304 above, Young is stayed pending a SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA.

We do not know yet the effect of NYSRPA will have on the Rogers cert petition, which is scheduled for a SCOTUS conference today. We may find out next Tues (Monday is Memorial Day).

OK so EVERYTHING is on hold then lol

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by J.D.Allen

OK so EVERYTHING is on hold then lol

As far as federal court cases involving the 2nd A, pretty much.

But work continues at the county level in liberalizing CCW issuance.

You'd be wise NOT to dismiss those efforts....

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

To be clear, this case (Flanagan) has not been stayed to date.

That may change. But, we do not know that it will be stayed.

Also, it is not so that all 2A cases are stayed pending the SCOTUS decision, Duncan, Rupp, and Rhode are all moving forward.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

To be clear, this case (Flanagan) has not been stayed to date.

That may change. But, we do not know that it will be stayed.

Also, it is not so that all 2A cases are stayed pending the SCOTUS decision, Duncan, Rupp, and Rhode are all moving forward.

Right. It's just Carry cases that would have a big impact (decisions by SCOTUS, CA9 en banc), that are "piling up" awaiting NYSRPA and maybe even Rogers. (Although that one may also be stayed pending NYSRPA.... )

Got a Q for you: IIRC, a CA9 3-judge panel can have 1 senior judge. Can it have 2? 3?

[Paladin]

Has the 3-judge panel for Flanagan been selected yet? If yes, have the judges been announced? If so, who are they? If not, when will they be selected?

MODS: it will probably be best to add an area above the text in the OP to put current status info re. this case.

[stag6.8]

Any updates yet?...I'm starting to think this case is also being put on hold due to New York .....anyone else feels the same way?...

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Odd_Ball

I think this might be it (now Flanagan v Becerra):

http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

No movement in Flanagan since denial of initial en banc review on 2019 Feb 07 -- almost 5 months ago.

Is the 3-judge appeal of Flanagan stayed pending NYSRPA? Is it stayed pending Young en banc (which, in turn, has been stayed pending NYSRPA since 2019 Feb 14)?

If the Flanagan appeal is not stayed pending either, what's the hold up? When should we expect movement? Setting date & time of oral arguments next??? (Skip the lame "two weeks!" posts folks.)

[wolfwood]

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 07/30/2019 at 3:23:50 PM PDT and filed on 07/30/2019

Case Name:

Michelle Flanagan, et al v. Xavier Becerra

Case Number:

18-55717

Document(s):

Document(s)



Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HL): The court stays proceedings in this appeal pending the issuance of a decision in 12-17808, Young v. State of Hawaii (en banc proceedings stayed pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc, v. City of New York); or upon further order of this court. [11381674] (AF)

[CCWFacts]

No surprise.

All "bear" cases in the 9th are going to be frozen until the NY case is over.

[uscscjohn]

True but frustrating. The NY case involves a law that even some liberal Justices should find unconstitutional. A pro second amendment finding won't require any sweeping proclamations that will prove dispositive of the California cases.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HL): The court stays proceedings in this appeal pending the issuance of a decision in 12-17808, Young v. State of Hawaii (en banc proceedings stayed pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc, v. City of New York); or upon further order of this court. [11381674] (AF)

So, Flanagan is along side of Nichols....

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So, Flanagan is along side of Nichols....

Nichols is actually ahead of Flanagan.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Nichols is actually ahead of Flanagan.

If NYSRPA causes a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing in Young? new oral arguments?

Same with Nichols: If NYSRPA and/or Young cause a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing and/or new orals?

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Paladin

If NYSRPA causes a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing in Young? new oral arguments?

Same with Nichols: If NYSRPA and/or Young cause a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing and/or new orals?

The State already asked for additional briefing. There definitely will be another oral argument in front of the 11 judge pane