Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/172794371/Fisher-MSJ-Decesion
Timestamp: 2014-12-27 17:29:43
Document Index: 479283456

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 711', '§ 134', '§ 706', '§ 134', '§ 711', '§ 134', '§ 134', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Fisher MSJ Decesion
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks1Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents(“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against Defendants Louis31. The Amended Complaint contains the following two counts:States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against AllPreliminary Injunction. ECF No. 18. After receiving the briefsPlaintiff Kirk C. Fisher’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction”35. The Court issued an injunction to Defendant Kealoha toDefendants”) filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 2012Reconsideration” (“Reconsideration Order re Plaintiff’sSummary Judgment (“MSJ”) and a Motion for Permanent Injunction(“MPI”). ECF Nos. 75 & 77. Plaintiff also filed a ConciseStatement of Facts in support of his MSJ. ECF No. 78. The CityDefendants filed their Memorandumin Opposition and ConciseCity Defendants under Local Rule 56.1(i). ECF No. 89. PlaintiffDefense Foundation (“HDF”) filed a Motion for Leave to FilePrevent Gun Violence (“Brady Center”) filed a Motion for Leave to2013. ECF No. 92Document Consisting of an Additional Exhibit. ECF No. 99. TheExhibit submitted by the City Defendants was Plaintiff’sPlaintiff filed an Opposition to the City Defendants’ Motion forDocument Consisting of an Additional Exhibit. ECF No. 101Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing. ECFCourt held another hearing regarding Plaintiff’s Motion forSummary Judgment and Motion for Permanent Injunction on SeptemberH.R.S. § 711-1106(1)(a).6/711-1106(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.” State of39-6. Plaintiff evidently received a certificate of completionChapter 134 are satisfied and that there are no . . 922(g)(9).” Id. The HPD promptly returned Plaintiff’s firearmsCSF Ex. 3. HPD then ordered Plaintiff to surrender to the police78-1. Plaintiff also alleges that HPD told himthat Putzulu’sCity Defendants also dispute whether a HPD officer told PlaintiffId. If HPD determines that an applicant’s conviction forHPD ran a background check and reviewed police reports related toHPD concluded that Plaintiff “engaged in conduct which includedU.S. at 250–51(2008). The Supreme Court also suggested that the core purpose30. However, the Supreme Court also observed that its holdingCity Defendants violated his Second Amendment right to bear armsAmendment rights. The Court also examines if Plaintiff’sPlaintiff admits in the Complaint and his deposition that ColettePresident Nixon angrily confronting the Soviet Premier and pokingCourt of Appeals noted that Nixon’s conduct could certainly beAmendment’s requirement of “the violent use of force against the1106(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.” State of Hawaii #i vThe Supreme Court has specifically held that the courts are not1068. As a result, the Court cannot use these documents to(9th Cir. 2010) (noting that consideration of a victim’sThe statutory scheme defines a “crime of violence” as “anyBecause the term“offense” is referred to in terms of itssections of the penal code in defining “crime of violence.” HawH.R.S. § 134-7 while keeping the felony prohibition;Haw. Sess. 462. Id. The legislature did not indicate that thePlntf.’s Supp. Brief at 7. In the absence of any intent to theApp. 2006). H.R.S. § 706-625(7) states that a nonviolentBrady Center argues that the lack of the word “elements”L. Ed. 2d 532 (2007). In James, the Supreme Court used the(2009)). The Court notes that the Supreme Court in Hayes did not555 U.S. at 421-22. The court observed that the use of force26. The Hayes case is distinguishable because the wording of the557 U.S. 29 (2009) uses a “circumstance-specific” approach to137 and § 134-1. The Brady Center argues that the Supreme CourtSixth Amendment concerns that could arise from“courts making(2013)). The Brady Center argues that these rationales behind296 (Haw. App. 2001). The court ruled that knocking a hat off of296. This Court declines to interpret § 711-1106(1)(a) in aH.R.S. § 134-1. Nor does the judgment containing Plaintiff’sPlaintiff pled guilty as charged. See Defs.’ Mtn. for Recon. ExPlaintiff’s conviction was based on an element involving “injuryCourt concludes that H.R.S. § 134-7(b) does not disqualifyPlaintiff fromexercising his Second Amendment rights because theSUBSTANCE ABUSE ASSESSMENT and shall participate in counseling39-6. The City Defendants also submit Plaintiff’s(specifically a six-pack of beer) on the day of the allegedPlaintiff attended and completed a Twelve Hour Drug and AlcoholEducation Course around February of 1998. Defs.’ Mtn. for Recon(4th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that habitual drugDugan was “less onerous” than the lifetime ban for the mentally17-498 Reg. Sess. at 987-988 (Haw. 1993) (noting that the medicalCourt DENIES his motion for summary judgment for his FourteenthPlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding whetherDENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment regardingIT IS SO ORDERED0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Fisher MSJ DecesionFisher MSJ DecesionRatings: (0)|Views: 15
|Likes: 0Published by Alan BeckWell looks like this thing is going to full trialWell looks like this thing is going to full trialMore info:Published by: Alan Beck on Oct 02, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/172794371/Fisher-MSJ-Decesion01/17/2014pdftextoriginal -1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAIIKIRK C. FISHER,Plaintiff,vs.LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individualand in his official capacity asHonolulu Chief of Police, PAULPUTZULU, as an individual and inhis official capacity as formeracting Honolulu Chief of Police,and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,Defendants.)))))))))))))))))Civ. No. 11-00589 ACK-BMK
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
On September 28, 2011, Plaintiff Kirk C. Fisher(“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against Defendants LouisKealoha, Paul Putzulu, the City and County of Honolulu (“City”),the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”), and Doe Defendants 1-50.Plaintiff asserted two claims against Defendants for allegedviolations of his Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rightsregarding his firearms and attempts to obtain a firearms permit.Compl. ¶¶ 47-57, ECF No. 1. The City and Kealoha filed motions for “partial”dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF Nos. 6 & 16-1. After
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 111 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 63 PageID #:1593
The record indicates that Defendant Putzulu has not beenserved with the Amended Complaint or appeared in this action.See ECF No. 31-2 and ECF Nos. 31-108. At the hearing onSeptember 17, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily dismissedDefendant Putzulu fromthis lawsuit.
The Complaint also references the Fifth Amendment in its Jurisdiction statement. Am. Compl. at 5 ¶ 11, ECF No. 31. TheCourt previously dismissed Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claimswith prejudice in its Order re Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.ECF No. 25 at 40 (dismissing Fifth Amendment claims on the basisthat the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment only applies(continued...)-2-receiving the briefs and conducting a hearing, this Court issuedan order that (1) dismissed the claims against the City withoutprejudice, (2) dismissed part of Plaintiff’s claims againstKealoha without prejudice, (3) dismissed all claims against theHPD with prejudice, and (4) dismissed Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendmentclaims with prejudice (“Order re Defendants’ Motions toDismiss”). ECF No. 25.Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaintagainst Louis Kealoha as an individual and in his officialcapacity, Paul Putzulu as an individual and in his officialcapacity, and the City (collectively, “Defendants”).
ECF No.31. The Amended Complaint contains the following two counts:“Count I - The Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against All Defendants,”and “Count II - The Fourteenth Amendments [sic] to the UnitedStates Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against AllDefendants.”
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 111 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 63 PageID #:1594
(...continued)to the actions of the federal government, not state or localgovernments). At the hearing held on August 12, 2013,Plaintiff’s counsel clarified that Plaintiff is not alleging aFifth Amendment claimin the Amended Complaint; the reference tothe Fifth Amendment in the Jurisdiction statement was atypographical error.-3-On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion forPreliminary Injunction. ECF No. 18. After receiving the briefsand holding a hearing, the Court issued its “Order GrantingPlaintiff Kirk C. Fisher’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction”on June 29, 2012 (“2012 Preliminary Injunction Order”). ECF No.35. The Court issued an injunction to Defendant Kealoha to“rescind the prior denial of Plaintiff’s permit to acquirefirearms and to issue a permit authorizing Plaintiff to acquirefirearms.” Id. at 36. Kealoha and the City (collectively, “CityDefendants”) filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 2012Preliminary Injunction Order (ECF No. 39), which the Courtsubsequently denied in its “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion forReconsideration” (“Reconsideration Order re Plaintiff’sPreliminary Injunction”). ECF No. 50.On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion forSummary Judgment (“MSJ”) and a Motion for Permanent Injunction(“MPI”). ECF Nos. 75 & 77. Plaintiff also filed a ConciseStatement of Facts in support of his MSJ. ECF No. 78. The CityDefendants filed their Memorandumin Opposition and ConciseStatement of Facts on July 22, 2013. ECF Nos. 89 & 90. Included
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 111 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 63 PageID #:1595
Filed Fisher v. Kealoha Opening Brief
Peruta Intervention Denied Order
Facebook TRO Order
SB's Reponse Birdt
Ares Armor Facebook Preliminary Injunction
San Diego Facebook Complaint Filed
Decision Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Order Re Level of Scrutiny Birdt
Resident Alien Attorney Fees Motion
SBSO Objections Birdt
Ares Armor Motion for Leave to File New Complaint
Ares Armor Amended Complaint
Order Enjoining Hawaii's Ban on Resident Aliens Owning Fi...
Ares Armor Affidavit
Arizona v. Serna - August 7, 2014
Palmer Decesion
Resident Alien Complaint
Resident Alien TRO
Resident Alien Preliminary Injunction
Fisher v Kealoha MSJ Order
Filed Joint Motion Bortin
Response Fisher
Fisher Kay Order