Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04613/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04613-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EASTON STOKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WILLIAM BARR, individually and as Attorney General 

of the United States, THE U.S. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, 

TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES (ATF), 

REGINA LOMARDO, individually and as Acting Director 

of ATF, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, CHRISTOPHER WRAY, individually 

and as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, XAVIER BECERRA, 

individually and acting as Attorney General of the State of 

California, and THE SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE, MARK ESSICK, individually and as Sheriff of 

Sonoma County,

Defendants.

No. C 19-04613 WHA

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

In this constitutional challenge alleging violations of the plaintiff’s right to bear arms, 

due process, and equal protection, federal defendants move to dismiss. Ambiguities in the 

Rule 12 record counsel in favor of later resolving these important issues on a more precise 

factual record under Rule 56.

In 2002, plaintiff Easton Stokes voluntarily checked himself into a Kaiser treatment 

center because he was experiencing “significant mental changes” after ingesting psilocybin, 

a hallucinogenic substance found in certain mushrooms. Kaiser personnel placed plaintiff 

Case 3:19-cv-04613-WHA Document 49 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on a psychiatric hold pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. 

An ambulance took him from Kaiser to Sonoma County’s Psychiatric Emergency Services

(“Oakcrest”). Once at Oakcrest, plaintiff was committed pursuant to a Section 5250 

certification, which applies to involuntary psychiatric holds lasting longer than 72 hours. 

See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250. While Oakcrest committed plaintiff under Section 5250, 

the complaint alleges that plaintiff remained at Oakcrest voluntarily. Oakcrest discharged 

plaintiff after 16 days. The complaint does not indicate whether plaintiff has since ingested 

psilocybin or other mind-altering substances, but it alleges that plaintiff has not had any mental 

health issues since 2002 (Compl. ¶¶ 5–6).

In 2016, plaintiff wanted to obtain a firearm permit so he could inherit his grandfather’s 

firearms. Section 922(g)(4) of Title 18 of the United States Code makes it unlawful for an 

individual “who has been committed to a mental institution” to possess or receive a firearm.

Regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under 

Section 922(g)(4) define “committed to a mental institution” to include only “involuntar[y]” 

commitments. 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The Section 5250 certification underlying plaintiff’s

sixteen-day commitment at Oakcrest applies to persons who have “not been willing or able to 

accept[] treatment on a voluntary basis.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250. In other words, 

because California law deems plaintiff’s commitment under Section 5250 to be involuntary, 

he has been barred under Section 922(g)(4) from obtaining any firearm. Thus, when plaintiff 

submitted a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check (“PFEC”) to California’s Bureau of Firearms,

it rejected his application. The Bureau’s response did not give an explanation, but the 

complaint alleges that the Oakcrest commitment caused the rejection (Compl. ¶¶ 30–31). 

In some states, PFEC applicants denied permits because of past commitments may appeal 

to have their rights restored through a “relief from disabilities” program by demonstrating to 

the Attorney General that they “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety 

and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 925(c). Not all states have such a program. States are only required to have relief from 

disabilities programs if they elect to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check

Case 3:19-cv-04613-WHA Document 49 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

System (“NICS”) for firearm background checks and accept federal grants to improve their 

NICS technology. 34 U.S.C. § 40913(a), (c). California chooses to perform its own 

background checks, so Section 40913 does not require it to implement such a program.

Thus, when plaintiff, a Californian, tried to petition his PFEC denial to the FBI’s NICS 

Section, the Bureau declined to process the appeal. Federal law offers no other forum for 

plaintiff to demonstrate his mental fitness. Thus, this application of Section 922(g)(4) amounts

to a lifetime firearm ban (Compl. ¶¶ 32–40), all on account of the incident 18 years ago.

Plaintiff filed this complaint in August 2019, alleging the following three claims

concerning Section 922(g)(4), as applied to him: (1) a violation of his Second Amendment

right to keep and bear arms, (2) a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, 

and (3) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection

Clauses. Defendants have filed the instant motion to dismiss all claims. Plaintiff opposes.

The motion to dismiss is DENIED. This action presents important issues under the 

Second Amendment. Further factual development would thus be beneficial and would help 

the court of appeals. The record should be expanded concerning the extent to which plaintiff’s 

commitment to Oakcrest was truly involuntary, as well as with respect to plaintiff’s subsequent 

mental health record, criminal record, the nature of the firearms in question, and other 

circumstance that will bear upon his fitness to lawfully keep and bear arms. 

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Discovery 

should proceed for approximately ninety days until APRIL 22, 2020, after which the parties

may move for summary judgment. Both sides shall cooperate in reasonable discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-04613-WHA Document 49 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3