Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kevin M. Hall v. Carlos A. Garcia

March 17, 2011

KEVIN M. HALL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CARLOS A. GARCIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

*E-Filed 3/17/11*

CORRECTED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Hall contends that California's Gun-Free School Zone Act violates his constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Hall sought an exemption 22 under the Act to carry openly an unloaded handgun within 1000 feet of school property. After his 23 request was denied, Hall filed suit against Carlos Garcia in his official capacity as Superintendent of 24 the San Francisco Unified School District. Garcia presently moves for judgment on the pleadings 25 on the grounds that his denial of an exemption from the Act is constitutional. After oral argument, 26 and for the reasons stated below, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. RS that a person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone without the written permission of 4 the school district superintendent. See Cal. Penal Code § 626.9(b). Under the Act, a school zone 5 encompasses the grounds of a public or private school engaged in kindergarten through twelfth-6 grade education and areas within 1000 feet of such property. § 626.9(e)(1). The Act contains 7 several statutory exemptions from that general prohibition. It does not apply to firearms possession "[w]ithin a place of residence or place of business or on private property." § 626.9(c)(1). For 9 firearms capable of being concealed on a person, an individual may possess such a firearm in a locked container or in the locked trunk of a motor vehicle. § 626.9(c)(2). Possession of a firearm is not prohibited where a person has obtained a current restraining order and "reasonably believes he 12 or she is in grave danger." § 626.9(c)(3). The Act also contains exemptions for some categories of 13 persons authorized to carry concealed weapons. § 626.9(c)(4). sent a written request to Superintendent Garcia seeking an exemption from the Act. In his letter, Hall raises his civil right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, but otherwise does 17 not attempt to justify his request by citing specific reasons or circumstances necessitating the 18 carrying of a firearm. In August 2010, the Senior Deputy Legal Counsel for the school district, 19 replying on behalf of Garcia, responded and stated simply that the Superintendent had determined 20 not to grant Hall's request for an exemption. Shortly thereafter, Hall filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 section 1983 claiming that Garcia's denial of an exemption violates his constitutional rights under 22 the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.*fn1

II. BACKGROUND

California's Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 prohibits possession of a firearm in a place

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Hall resides in San Francisco within 1000 feet of an elementary school. In July 2010, he "means to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint after an answer has been filed." New.Net, Inc. (b) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, differing only in that it is filed after pleadings 6 are closed. See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all material allegations in the 8 complaint are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. relief can be granted, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fairbanks N. Star Borough v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 543 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2008). 12

The Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 2799 (2008). Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is a v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2004). It is "functionally identical" to a Rule

See Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). On that basis, if no

IV. DISCUSSION

Amendment, this right is equally protected against infringement by the States. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010). Like other individual rights, the right to keep and 17 bear arms "is not unlimited." 554 U.S. at 626 (explaining that, historically, "the right was not a 18 right to keep and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.