San Diego Police Dept. v. Nailon CA4/1
Filed 4/10/25 San Diego Police Dept. v. Nailon CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, D084067
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. D037-2023- 00039942-CU-PT-CTL) KRISTINE LYNN NAILON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter F. Murray, Judge. Affirmed. Kristine L. Nailon, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the City Attorney, Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, Jean E. Jordan, Assistant City Attorney and Blair McGregor, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Kristine Lynn Nailon appeals as a self-represented litigant from a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) enjoining her from possessing a firearm for three years. We understand her appeal to raise (1) a twofold challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction to impose the order, (2) a claim there was
insufficient evidence to support issuance of the GVRO, and (3) a claim she was illegally prosecuted for a crime in retaliation for asserting a discrimination complaint against the United States Navy. Nailon’s claims are all forfeited or lacking in merit. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On September 15, 2023, Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) alerted the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) that Nailon attempted to
purchase a firearm. Pursuant to Penal Code section 18175,1 SDPD petitioned the trial court that same day for a GVRO against her. In a supporting declaration, Detective Justin Garlow averred he was a member of SDPD’s Gun Violence Response Unit, and he was assigned to investigate and file GVRO petitions. Based on documents he reviewed during his investigation of Nailon, he determined she was in the United States Navy in April 2023, and she was stationed in Japan on the USS Ronald Reagan. On April 19, she reportedly told the psychological provider on duty she had a plan “to kill all members” aboard the ship. She also had a plan to hurt or kill a particular “unnamed sailor.” She was “motivated by her dislike for the perceived mistreatment she received from [service] members aboard the [ship],” and she “wanted to see others on the ship suffer like she suffered.” Nailon was transferred to the Naval Medical Center in San Diego for inpatient psychological treatment. There, on June 8, 2023, she told an NCIS interviewer “she had a plan to[ ] ‘shoot up the ship[ ]’ and everyone on it by attacking the [master-at-arms] and stealing their guns.” She said she “would make [her] way to the ship and kill anyone coming on and off the ship,” and she claimed this would be easy for her to accomplish because she worked
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)