Washington Post: Gun Owners' Next Victory in D.C.

[MJD438]

They were referencing the Masciandaro CA4 dissent from Judge Neimeyer.

Ah, got it...was just reviewing on here and had not had the time to read the PDF. Thanks!

 

[JMangle]

And the wheels of justice rust on the axle.

 

[krucam]

Some mild humor and "activity" in Palmer yesterday.

Looking at the Docket: http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

...reveals nothing but back and forth "Supplemental Authority" filings chiming off announcements of the various cases we follow here.

Thursday, DC filed #33, a
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

It talks about the wonderful (in their world) briefs submitted by IL in CA7 for Moore and Sheppard. This Defendant Supplemental Memorandum didn't go without notice for very long.

Thursday, SAF/Gura filed a
MOTION to Strike 33 Supplemental Memorandum

With #33 are 3 Attachments.

33 1 Exhibit Illinois Brief, Moore v. Madigan (7th Cir.)
33 2 Exhibit Chicago Brief
33 3 Exhibit Brady Center Brief

The 3 Attachments are apparently the Amici briefs in Moore & Sheppard.

The rationale for wanting to Strike Defendant's #33 is:

Local Rule 7(e) provides:
A memorandum of points and authorities in support of or in opposition to a motion shall not exceed 45 pages and a reply memorandum shall not exceed 25 pages, without prior approval of the court. Documents that fail to comply with this provision shall not be filed by the Clerk....

...Notwithstanding Rule 7(e), and the scheduling order, the District today filed three (3) additional briefs, containing one hundred and forty two (142) pages of appellate argument in support of its position—attached to an unauthorized eight page memorandum. The briefs are from the cases Moore v. Madigan, 7 Cir. No. 12-1269 and Shepard v. Madigan, th 7th Cir. No. 12-1788, which are set to be heard together on June 8, 2012. Oddly, the District of Columbia did not submit its own amicus brief filed in that case.

Filing CA7 Amici in a DC Circuit case...

Final quip from the Gura objection:

...this is not the submission of supplemental authority.
This is an unauthorized decision to dump four briefs, consisting of one hundred and fifty pages, into the record in disregard of the rules and scheduling order.

 

[press1280]

Well let's hope this wakes the court up. The court has to address this in some form correct? While they're at it, they might as well make (a looong) and overdue decision and send this case forward for a change.

 

[2ndsupporter]

New filings as of this am. Anyone with pacer care to expand the archive?

 

[MJD438]

New filings as of this am. Anyone with pacer care to expand the archive?

Just logged in to PACER and refreshed the docket listing. RECAP says it has been uploaded, but the archive does not show it yet. Latest two lines added in the quote below.

07/23/2012 MOTION SCHEDULING NOTICE as to 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Supplemental Memorandum,. Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2012 10:00 AM in a courtroom to be determined at a later date before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
07/25/2012 RESCHEDULING NOTICE TIME CHANGE ONLY re: 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Hearing remains set for 8/27/2012 and the time is changed to 03:30 PM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 07/25/2012)

 

[press1280]

Just logged in to PACER and refreshed the docket listing. RECAP says it has been uploaded, but the archive does not show it yet. Latest two lines added in the quote below.

Another round of oral arguments? Weren't they already done 2 years ago?

 

[Patrick]

Another round of oral arguments? Weren't they already done 2 years ago?

New judge since then.

Maybe this suggests forward movement. I think we could look at this case as just starting now.

 

[krucam]

OK, referencing Post #106 above, arguments are set for:
8/27 @ 10am
8/27 @ 3:30pm

Got it...

Oh, wait:

08/16/2012 MOTION RESCHEDULING NOTICE as to 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Due to a change in the Court's calendar the Motion Argument set 8/27/2012 is reset for 8/29/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

8/27 @ 10am
8/27 @ 3:30pm
8/29/ @ 10am

Got it...

Oh, wait:

08/20/2012 TEXT SCHEDULING NOTICE CANCELLING ORAL ARGUMENT for 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Argument set for 8/29/2012 before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. is adjourned without date due to a conflict in the Court's calendar. Counsel will be notified when future dates become available. The motion remains on submit. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

Teases...

 

[yellowfin]

"Calendar conflict" meaning a phone call from certain anti gun people telling him he'd better not take/rule on that case or else...

 

[esqappellate]

"Calendar conflict" meaning a phone call from certain anti gun people telling him he'd better not take/rule on that case or else...

Did not happen.

 

[press1280]

Did not happen.

We've already had the chief justice of SCOTUS step in to have this case re-assigned when it dragged on for too long. What happens when it continues to drag on for too long? Let's remember this case was filed 3 years ago, and still hasn't been decided in district court.

 

[Kanly]

Maybe Emily Miller should do an article on this

 

[esqappellate]

We've already had the chief justice of SCOTUS step in to have this case re-assigned when it dragged on for too long. What happens when it continues to drag on for too long? Let's remember this case was filed 3 years ago, and still hasn't been decided in district court.

the delay has been shameful. But delays like this are not uncommon in DCT in DC. In any event, I cannot believe that this delay was caused by some backroom ex parte instruction from on high to this Art. III judge. There is no "on high" to a federal judge under the constitution -- his job is secure for life for good behavior. That would be so far outside the bounds that a judge would have to resign if it ever came to light and sanctions could be sought as to those who tried it. And this is DC where you can never be sure that something won't get out.

 

[2ndsupporter]

the delay has been shameful. But delays like this are not uncommon in DCT in DC. In any event, I cannot believe that this delay was caused by some backroom ex parte instruction from on high to this Art. III judge. There is no "on high" to a federal judge under the constitution -- his job is secure for life for good behavior. That would be so far outside the bounds that a judge would have to resign if it ever came to light and sanctions could be sought as to those who tried it. And this is DC where you can never be sure that something won't get out.

Don't forget that this was reassigned to an upstate ny judge on senior status.

 

[esqappellate]

Don't forget that this was reassigned to an upstate ny judge on senior status.

I know personally that the DC DCt is overwhelmed with work. Assigning a case to a senior judge who is available and who is willing to shoulder the load is commonplace in D.C. and elsewhere.

 

[2ndsupporter]

activity this am in docket

I checked the docket this am. filings @ 0630. checked pacer and not uploaded yet. if someone else gets there first let's have an update.

 

[krucam]

I checked the docket this am. filings @ 0630. checked pacer and not uploaded yet. if someone else gets there first let's have an update.

I just looked. The latest filings are the ones I posted above, in Post 109 on 8/20.

The Docket is having issues being updated from PACER/RECAP unfortunately.
http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

 

[2ndsupporter]

I just looked. The latest filings are the ones I posted above, in Post 109 on 8/20.

The Docket is having issues being updated from PACER/RECAP unfortunately.
http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

http://ia700408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/

use this link to see

 

[krucam]

Back ON again...

08/30/2012 MOTION RESCHEDULING NOTICE as to 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Argument reset for 10/1/2012 10:30 AM before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. at the US Courthouse in Washington, DC. Courtroom location to be announced at a later date. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/30/2012)

I know we're likely looking at a loss here, but at least get Mr Palmer's case out of District!