N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HR ISTOPHER

B AKER , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LOUIS KEALOHA, a s a n individual a

nd in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity a s Honolulu C hie f of Polic e ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 12-16258 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00528-AC K-KSC
ORDER *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Ala n C . Ka y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2012 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd O’ SC ANNLAIN a

nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . The pe tition for re he aring is gra nte d, our M arc h 20, 2014 m e m orandum disposition is va

c a te d, the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of pla intiff’ s m otion for a 

# F IL ED
MAR 10 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.pre l im ina

ry injunc tion is va c a te d, a

nd this m a tte r is re m ande d to the Distric t C ourt without pre

judic e to the Distric t C ourt gra nting or de ny ing a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion or othe rwise c onside ring the c a se in light of Pe ruta v . C ity of San Die

go , 824 F.3d 919, 924 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba nc ), and othe r inte rve ning Ninth C irc uit opinions. Ea c h side sha ll be ar its own c osts.

2Bak

e r v . K e a loha , No. 12-16258 THOM AS, C hie f Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. First, B ake r la c ks sta nding to a sse rt his c la im s. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing the pla intiff’ s
m otion for pre l im ina

ry injunc tion, a

nd, though it is not dispositive of a ll the issue s,
our re c e nt e n ba

nc de c ision in Pe ruta v . C ity of San Die

go , 824 F.3d 919 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba

nc ) bolste rs this c onc lusion. Thus, I would a ffirm the distric t c ourt in its e n tire t y . I “ It is a long-e sta blishe d rule ‘ that a pla intiff la c ks sta n ding to c ha lle nge a rule or polic y

to whic h he ha s not subm itte d him se lf by a c tua lly

a pply ing for the de sire d be ne fit.’ ” Frie ry

v . Los Ange le

s Sc h. Dist. , 448 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th C ir. 2006) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting Madse n v . Boise State Univ
. , 976 F.2d 1219, 1220–21 (9th C ir. 1992) (pe r c uriam )). He re , the re is no e vide n c e in the re c ord tha t B ake r sought a n ope n c arry

lic e nse or tha

t Ke a loha c onside re d B ake r’ s fitne s s for a n ope n
c arry lic e nse by

de te rm ining whe the r B ake r ha d e sta blishe d a suffic ie nt “ urge nc y ” or “ n e e d” for one , a s re quire d by the provision. H.R .S. § 134-9. Nor ha s B ake r provide d a

ny e vide nc e that subm itting a n a p plic a tion for a

n ope n-c arry

lic e n se would be futile
. C

o mpare Frie ry , 448 F.3d a

t 1149–50 (c onc luding the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to de te rm ine futility) w ith Taniguc hi v . Sc h ultz , 303 F.3d 950, 

# F IL ED
MAR 10 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS957 (9th C i r. 2002) (c o nc l uding tha t the fa c e of the c ha l le nge d sta t ute e s ta blishe d futility). In the a

bse nc e of sta

nding to c ha l le nge the ope n-c arry a spe c t of Ha

wa ii’ s sta tute s, B ake r c ould not suc c e e d on the m e rits of his c la im that Ha wa ii’ s sta te sta tute s, a nd the c i ty

of Honolulu’ s e nforc e m e nt of the m , viola te his Se c ond Am e ndm e nt right to c arry a fire arm outside the hom e and his dueproc e ss rights. II The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d the m o tion for a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. In orde r to pre va il on a m otion for a pre l im ina

ry injunc tion, the m oving pa rty m ust
e sta blish tha t: (1) he is like l y

to suc c e e d on the m e rits; (2) heis like l y to suffe r irre pa ra ble ha rm in the a bse n c e of pre lim ina

ry re lie f; (3) the ba la

nc e of e quitie s tips in his fa

vor; a nd (4) a n injunc tion is in the

public inte re st. W

inte r v . N atural Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc

. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). He re , in a sixty -four pa ge , e xtre m e ly thorough, de ta i le d, a

nd we l l-re a sone d orde r, the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t the pla intiff wa s not e n title d to a pre l im ina ry injunc tion. The distric t c ourt thoroughly and c orre c tly

ana ly z e d the Supre m e C ourt’ s holdings in Distric t of C olumbia v . He lle r , 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
and Mc Donald v . C

ity of C hic ago , 561 U.S. 742 (2010), a s we ll a s c a se s from fe de ra l a p pe lla t e and distric t c ourts a ddre ssing theissue of fire arm s re stric tions.

-2-From this a

na ly sis, the distric t c ourt re a sona bly c onc l ude d tha

t B ake r wa s not like ly to suc c e e d in e sta

b lishing on his Se c o nd Am e ndm e nt c ha lle nge . The c om pla int wa s, in the words of the distric t c ourt, “prolix a nd re pe titive ”
and “ a t tim e s unc le ar.” The distric t c ourt not only re je c te d the m otion for a pre l im ina ry injunc tion on the ba sis tha t B ake r wa s unlike ly

to pre v a il, but a l so
c onc lude d tha

t he ha d utte rly

fa ile d to e sta

blish irre pa

ra ble ha rm . B ake r’ s c la im e d irre pa ra ble ha rm wa s tha t he ne e de d a

we a pon to de fe nd him se lf in his job a s a proc e s s se rve r. Howe ve r, a s the distric t c ourt pointe d out, he ha d a lre a dy volunta rily a ba ndone d tha

t position a

nd wa s no longe r in tha

t busine ss. His other
c la im e d fe ar wa s the possibility of future c onfronta

tions. Thedistric t c ourt
c onc lude d tha

t B ake r ha d “ n o t shown tha t a ny of the a lle ge d ha

rm is like ly to be
anything m ore tha

n m e re spe c ulation, whic h is ina de quate to e sta blish irre pa

ra ble ha rm .” Tha t showing, of c ourse , is pre c ise ly what the Supre m e C ourt re quire d in W inte r . 555 U.S. a

t 21–22. The

re c o rd m o re tha

n am ply supports the

distric t
c ourt’ s c o nc lusion tha

t B ake r ha d not shown irre pa ra ble ha rm . The distric t c ourt a l so re a sona bly c onc l ude d tha

t B ake r ha d fa ile d to
e sta blish tha t the ba la nc e of e quitie s tippe d in his fa vor a nd tha t a n injunc tion wa s in the public inte re st. In re a c hing this c onc lusion, the distric t c o urt prope rly
re je c te d B ake r’ s a

rgum e n t tha

t Ha wa ii would suffe r no ha

rm from an injunc tion -3-be c a

use his a rgum e nt ignore d the se rious sa fe ty risk a s soc iate d

with inc re a se d fire arm posse ssion. Thec ourt a lso prope rly re j e c te d B ake r’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t
c rim ina l prohibitions on fire arm s posse ssion a re an a de quate substitute

for the Hawa i i sta

tute s be c a use B ake r fa ile d to providee vide n c e in support of this proposition. Thus, e

ve n a b se nt c onside ration of thelike lihood of B ake r’ s suc c e ss on the m e rits, the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusions a s to the thre e re m a ining pre lim ina ry injunc tion re quire m e nts— and the re fore its de c ision to de ny injunc tive re lie f— are
c le arly supporte d by

the re c o rd. None the le ss, in holding tha t the Se c ond Am e ndm e nt doe s not prote c t a right for m e m be rs of the ge ne ra l public to c arry c onc e a le d fire arm s in public , Pe ruta ha s now fore c lose d the possibility of B ake r suc c e e ding on them e rits of his c ha lle nge
a t le a st to thec onc e a le d -c arry a spe c t of Ha

wa ii’ s sta tute s. 824 F.3d a

t 927. The e n ba nc pa ne l in Pe ruta e xplic i tly

de c line d to a ddre ss the issue of whe the r the Se c ond Am e ndm e nt prote c ts a

right to ope nly

c arry fire arm s in public
. Id. The re fore , a que stion re m a ins a s to whe t he r B ake r is like ly

to suc c e e d

on the m e rits of a
c ha lle nge to the ope n-c arry a spe c t of Ha

wa i i’ s sta tute s . Furthe r, the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion sought by the pla intiff wa s swe e ping in
sc ope , se e king a

prohibition on the

e n forc e m e n t of m

u ltiple se c tions of the Hawa ii R e vise d Statute s. The re is sim ply no justific a tion for a

broa dside inte rfe re nc e with -4-sta

te la w e nforc e m e nt. As theSupre m e C ourt ha s re m inde d us: “ W he re , a s he re , the e xe rc i se of a

uthority by sta t e offic ia ls is a

tta c ke d, fe d e ra l c ourts m

ust be
c onsta ntly m indful of the ‘ spe c ia l de lic a c y of the a djustm e n t

to be pre se rve d be twe e n fe de ra l e quita

b le powe r and Sta

te a dm inistra

tion of its own la

w.’ ” Rizzo
v . Goode , 423 U.S. 362, 375 (1976) (quoting Ste fane l li v . Minard

, 342 U.S. 117, 120 (1951)).

“ W e re vie w the distric t c ourt's gra nt of a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion for a

buse of disc re tion, re vie wing findings of fac t for c le ar e rror a n d c onc lusions of la w de novo.” Ame ric ans for Prosperity Foundation v . Harris , 809 F.3d 536, 539 (9th C ir. 2015). The distric t c ourt did not make any e rrors of la

w a nd c e rta inly did not
a buse i ts disc re tion in its thorough orde r. Thus, a ssum ing B ake r e ve n ha s sta n ding to pursue

his c la im s, I would hold that the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing the pre lim ina ry injunc tion. It c onside re d a nd we ighe d the a

ppropria te fa c tors a

nd wa s e n tire ly
c orre c t in its de nia l of the pre lim ina ry injunc tion m o tion. I a gre e c o m ple te ly with Judge Kay ’ s thorough a

n d insightful orde

r. I would a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. For the se re a sons, I re spe c tfully disse nt.

-5-