Stokes v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

551 F.Supp.3d 993

Easton STOKES, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Attorney General of California, et al., Defendants.

No. C 19-04613 WHA

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed July 30, 2021

Timothy Sean Kelly, Attorney at Law, Vallejo, CA, for Plaintiff.

Julie Bibb Davis, United States Attorney's Office, Oakland, CA, Eric Joseph Soskin, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Sara Winslow, United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants United States Department of Justice, William Barr, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Christopher A. Wray, III.

Eric Joseph Soskin, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Sara Winslow, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants Regina Lombardo, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Jerry T. Yen, California State Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants Xavier Becerra, State of California.

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WILLIAM ALSUP, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

A federal statute imposes a lifetime ban on possession of a firearm for anyone "who has been committed to a mental institution," a statutory term requiring "robust judicial involvement," according to our court of appeals. In the instant case, a teenager got high and, after a 72-hour treatment, medical personnel "certified" him for a further fourteen-day residential treatment. No judge was ever involved. Decades later, he now wishes to inherit two firearms from his grandfather. This order holds that the "certification" did not (and does not) bar him from possessing the firearms because it did not constitute a "commitment" within the meaning of the federal statute. Therefore, summary judgment for plaintiff must be GRANTED . Federal defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment must be DENIED . The California Attorney General's motion for summary judgment under the Eleventh Amendment is DENIED .

STATEMENT

In March 2002, when he was an eighteen-year-old high school senior, plaintiff Easton Stokes ingested psychedelic, psilocybin mushrooms, drank alcohol, and smoked marijuana over a period of several days. He needed medical help. His friends and foster family took him to Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa Hospital. According to handwritten notes from a doctor on a form titled "PHYSCHIATRY: DIAGNOSTIC INTAKE EVALUATION (MEDICATION)," plaintiff told the evaluating doctor that (Dkt. No. 79 at 1):

after binging on psychedelic mushrooms [approximately a week prior,] he ha[d] been having difficulty sleeping, ha[d] been skipping school ... "not [himself,]" culminating in a night of ... heavy [marijuana] use last Friday night in which he ‘freaked out,’ hit a close friend, and other impulsive acts ....

Under the section of the form for "Assessment (Brief narrative case summary)," the evaluating doctor wrote (id. at 5):

Pt in the aftermath of hallucinogenic drug binge, who has not fully recovered. Pt may have been suffering from depression prior to events of past week, but unclear .... Although vague and somewhat disorganized he denied violent or self-destructive urges now. Agrees to [stop] drug [and alcohol] use ....

Plaintiff reported not feeling suicidal or homicidal (id. at 7). Next to "Involuntary Hold (5150)," the staff checked "No" (id. at 4).

Later the same day, or the next day, however, the Kaiser personnel transferred him to Oakcrest Psychiatric Hospital, a facility operated by Sutter Health for Sonoma County. He went transported in a seated position in an ambulance (Stokes Dep. 107:2–14, 110:21–25). He testified he went voluntarily (id. 105:20–106:16). En route, he heard that he had been designated as a "Section 5150" case (id. 133:20–134:1). And, although plaintiff testified he wanted the treatment and went voluntarily to Oakcrest, he was certified there for a fourteen-day hold under Section 5250 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Oakcrest so notified the California Department of Justice. He remained at Oakcrest until March 25, when he was discharged (Dkt. No. 79 at 12).

The Oakcrest facility closed years ago and its records are lost to history, so abbreviated Kaiser notes of updates from Oakcrest are all that remain of the treatment at Oakcrest. While those notes reference a "probable 14-day hold" at Oakcrest, they do not explain the basis for the fourteen-day hold. The Kaiser notes go on to reflect outpatient treatment for a few subsequent months, patient improvement, and then a discontinuation by doctors of further treatment during the summer of 2002.

No judge ever reviewed plaintiff's case or committed him.

Despite the hospitalization, plaintiff graduated high school on time and, in the nearly two decades since, has lived a responsible, law-abiding life, the only exception being a misdemeanor conviction for unlawfully carrying a concealed, unloaded pistol in his vehicle in 2006 (Dkt. No. 72 at 17). Plaintiff earned his Associate of Arts degree from Santa Rosa Junior College in 2005, and his Bachelor of Arts degree in environmental studies from California State University Sonoma in 2010.

In 2010, at 27 years old, plaintiff was diagnosed with a rare form of stage three colon cancer. Plaintiff's entire large intestine was removed, and he went through twelve rounds of chemotherapy, which caused arthritis, in turn requiring shoulder surgery. During his cancer treatment, plaintiff grew and sold marijuana to dispensaries to support himself financially since he physically could not work in construction, his usual occupation. Plaintiff also used marijuana during that period as an anesthetic. He had licenses for his personal use and commercial growing (Stokes Dep. 26:17–27:3).

Plaintiff is now 38 years old, has a girlfriend, and has no children. He has never been charged with or convicted of a felony; he has no history of domestic violence; no connection with any gangs or felons; and, other than the 2002 episode when he was eighteen, he has never been treated for mental or emotional problems.

Plaintiff wants to inherit two family heirlooms from his grandfather. Plaintiff's grandfather served in the United States Air Force in the Second World War as a P-38 fighter pilot. From November 1944–April 1945, plaintiff's grandfather flew 31 missions, totaling 167 combat hours, over Europe. Plaintiff's grandfather retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel in 1964. Plaintiff wants to inherit his grandfather's service sidearm, an Ithaca 1911, .45 caliber Colt sidearm. The second family heirloom is a Winchester 1894, .30 caliber hunting rifle, manufactured in 1906, used by his great grandfather in his occupation as a government hunter in Grants Pass, Oregon. Neither weapon is an assault rifle. Neither has an oversize magazine.

In 2016, in anticipation of inheriting the firearms, plaintiff submitted a personal firearms eligibility check (PFEC) to the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms. That agency replied that he was ineligible to possess or purchase firearms but gave no explanation (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3). In response to plaintiff's inquiry concerning the restriction, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) section of the FBI informed plaintiff only that (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5):

California does not utilize the NICS system to conduct PFEC. Therefore, the Appeal Services Team of the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division's NICS Section is not required to consider appeals of denials by state or local agencies that do not utilize the NICS system.

Although the letters from the California DOJ and NICS did not state a reason for denying plaintiff's personal firearms eligibility check, a certification of firearms prohibition from the California DOJ stated that the effective date of plaintiff's prohibition was March 12, 2002, with the basis simply being: "PROHIBITION/5250 — 5250 WIC — DTSO OR GRAVELY DISABLED" (Dkt. No. 89 at 42). This was shorthand for Section 5250 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code and for danger to self or others or gravely disabled.

Federal law prohibits a person "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" from possessing a firearm or ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). Federal law has provided two potential avenues for relief from this lifetime ban, but both have long been foreclosed to all California residents. First , before 1992, a person in plaintiff's position could have applied to the United States Attorney General for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), which provided that the Attorney General could grant relief if the Attorney General was satisfied "that the applicant 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." Since 1992, however, Congress has prohibited the use of funds to act on such applications, disabling the program. See United States v. Bean , 537 U.S. 71, 123 S.Ct. 584, 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002). Second , the states may establish programs under 34 U.S.C. § 40915 to provide opportunity for relief from the ban of Section 922(g)(4). Thirty-one states and two tribal governments have established such programs, but California has not. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATS. , NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) Awards FY 2009–2020 (June 12, 2021, 9:00 PM), https://bjs.ojp.gov/programs/nics-improvement-amendments-act/state-profiles#gqumc. Thus, as the law now stands, plaintiff Stokes (and all other Californians certified for Section 5250 fourteen-day treatments) are banned for life from possessing a firearm with no opportunity for relief, according to defendants.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in August 2019 against various federal, state, and local agencies and officials, including the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General of California. Plaintiff asserts that his...