Hartford v. Ferguson

[4] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [5] AT TACOMA 6 LAWRENCE HARTFORD; DOUGLAS CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05364-RJB MITCHELL; BRETT BASS; SPORTING 7 SYSTEMS VANCOUVER, INC.; ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE 8 FOUNDATION, INC.; AND FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., [9] Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 BOB FERGUSON, in his official capacity as Washington State Attorney General; 12 JOHN R. BATISTE, in his official capacity as Chief of the Washington State Patrol; 13 JOHN GESE, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Kitsap County, Washington; 14 CLAYTON MYERS, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Kittitas County; 15 JOHN HORCH, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Clark County; ADAM 16 FORTNOY, in his official capacity as Sherriff for Snohomish County; CHAD M. 17 ENRIGHT, in his official capacity as County Prosecutor for Kitsap County; 18 GREGORY L. ZEMPEL, in his official capacity as County Prosecutor for Kittitas 19 County; TONY GOLIK, in his official capacity as County Prosecutor for Clark 20 County, JASON CUMMINGS, in his official capacity as County Prosecutor for 21 Snohomish County, and ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY [22] Defendants. [24] 1 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae 2 on Behalf of Washington Gun Rights and the American Firearms Association in Support of 3 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 34. The Court has considered the pleadings 4 filed regarding the motion and the remaining file. 5 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 6 In this case, the Plaintiffs challenge a recently enacted Washington State assault weapons 7 regulation, Substitute House Bill 1240 (“HB 1240”), arguing that it violates their constitutional 8 right to bear arms. Dkt. 1. The Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied on June 9 6, 2023. Dkt. 55. The facts and procedural history are in the June 6, 2023 Order Denying 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 55 at 1-3) and are adopted here. The moving parties 11 seek leave to file an amici curiae brief in support of the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary 12 injunction. Dkt. 34. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 A. STANDARD FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 15 The role of amicus curiae is to “assist[] in a case of general public interest, supplement[] 16 the efforts of counsel, and draw[] the court’s attention to law that escaped consideration.” 17 Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 18 1982). They are not parties to the case. Id. 19 B. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF 20 The motion (Dkt. 34) should be denied as moot. The motion for preliminary injunction 21 was denied on June 6, 2023. Dkt. 55. 22 Moreover, the Proposed Amici do not meet the requirements of Miller-Wohl - they do not 23 supplement the efforts of the Plaintiffs’ counsel or draw the Court’s attention to relevant law [24] 1 which was not addressed. The Proposed Amici include extra-record facts in the briefs. Insofar 2 as it may be appropriate to add claims or facts, it should be done through the parties’ counsel, so 3 the protections found in due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery, 4 and the Federal Rules of Evidence are assured. While the Court has considered the Proposed 5 Amici’s brief, it is not relevant to, and the Court did not consider it, in the decision on the motion 6 for preliminary injunction. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 9 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 10 Dated this 12th day of June, 2023. 11 A [12] ROBERT J. BRYAN [13] United States District Judge