complaint - birdt v. san bernardino - 513-cv-00673-vap-jem - november 11, 2013
DESCRIPTION
1st Amended Complaint by Birdt including his declaration that he is a resident of San Bernardino County.TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
:17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- FILED CLERX. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
JONATHAN W. BIRDT 10315 Woodley Ave, Suite 208 Granada Hills, CA 91344 Telephone: (818) 400-4485 Facsimile: (818) 428-1384 [email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JONATHAN BIRDT, CASE NO. 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM
Plaintiff, FIRST AMEMDED COMPLAINT FOR SECOND AMENDMENT
VS. VIOLATION- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
� SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFFS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPARTMENT,
Defendants. ATTORNEY FEES REQUESTED 42 U.S.C. § 1988
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Jonathan Birdt, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges violations of his Second Amendment Rights by Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
1. The California Legislature has mandated that the only method by which a
resident of the State can bear arms for the purpose of self-defense outside the
home is with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
2. Plaintiff is a resident of San Bernardino County and sought a concealed
weapons permit and his application was denied on February 26, 2013 without
any statutory reason for the denial.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - I
Case 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:136
I
JURISDICTION & VENUE
2
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42
3
U.S.C. § 1983.
4 4. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
5
6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7 SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
8
9 5. The Supreme Court has held that "the Second Amendment protects the right to
10 keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense." McDonald v. City of
Chicago, Iii. (2010) 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3021.
11 6. Plaintiff cannot exercise this right without a permit from Defendant.
12 7. Defendant refuses to issue a permit or provide a statutory basis for his refusal
.13 to do so.
14 8. Plaintiff meets all State mandated requirements and has complied with all
15 Department procedures as instructed by the CCW coordinator for the SB SO.
16 9. Plaintiff submitted a complete application packet as provided to him by the
17
SBSO CCW Coordinator and was not advised of any deficiency in his
18 application.
19 10.Plaintiff was told an interview was to be scheduled, but Defendant did not
20 comply with their own internal policy and simply sent the denial letter without
21 even interviewing the Plaintiff.
22 11 .Despite having fully complied with all statutory requirements and procedural
23 requirements established by SBSO, Defendant continues to refuse to issue
24 Plaintiff a permit necessary to exercise his Second Amendment Rights outside
25 of the home.
26 12. Upon receiving notice of this Courts ruling on Defendants motion to dismiss,
27 Plaintiff again invited the Sheriff to issue his permit and end the litigation
28 without any additional expense.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -2
Case 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:137
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13 .Therefore, Defendants policies and practices have infringed Plaintiffs Second
Amendment Right to Bear Arms for the purpose of Self-Defense as he has
complied with all legal obligations, but defendant refuses to issue the permit
necessary to exercise that fundamental right without any legal basis.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14. For an order requiring Defendant to issue a Permit to Plaintiff without delay.
15. Costs and Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
I October 22, 2013
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -3
Case 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:138