David Rhein v. John Coffman, 825 F.3d 823

Background

David Rhein made repeated threats and sent materials (including crosshairs) to Illinois Representative Anthony DeLuca and stated he was "ready to start shooting people." State police revoked Rhein’s FOID (firearm) Card and seized his weapons after a summary revocation under 430 ILCS 65/8(f).
Lieutenant John Coffman (Chief, Bureau of Firearms Services) effected the summary revocation and sent Rhein a letter explaining the revocation, advising him of the ability to seek reinstatement, and recommending three character references and a psychologist’s report.
Regulations placed authority to grant reinstatement (and to hold or waive a hearing) with the Director of the Illinois State Police, not Coffman. Rhein’s lawyer later requested reinstatement and, months afterward, a hearing; Coffman forwarded the file and then left the Bureau.
The Director reinstated Rhein’s FOID card about 16 months after revocation; firearms were returned thereafter. Rhein sued Coffman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations based on delay in restoring his guns.
The district court granted summary judgment for Coffman. On appeal Rhein limited his claim to delay in returning firearms (abandoning the argument that a pre-revocation hearing was required).
The Seventh Circuit held Coffman not liable: Coffman lacked authority to decide reinstatement; he did not obstruct the Director once Rhein asked for a hearing; recommending evidence did not create constitutional liability; and Rhein’s threatening statements were "true threats."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coffman violated the Second Amendment by delaying restoration of guns	Rhein: Coffman’s actions caused unconstitutional delay in returning firearms	Coffman: He lacked authority to decide reinstatement and did not obstruct Director; delay by other officials not his constitutional responsibility	Coffman not liable; responsibility rested with Director and other parts of State Police
Whether Coffman violated procedural due process by not providing timely hearing/returning guns	Rhein: Delay denied timely hearing and restoration of property rights	Coffman: Regulations gave right to apply to Director and to request hearing; Coffman’s recommendations were nonbinding; Rhein (through counsel) could have sought immediate Director action	No due-process liability for Coffman; Rhein had procedural avenues he did not exhaust against Director
Whether Coffman’s recommendation that Rhein obtain character references and a psychologist’s report was constitutionally improper	Rhein: Demands for evidence would inevitably cause delay and thus are unconstitutional	Coffman: Advice was noncompulsory and reasonable in light of Rhein’s threatening conduct; giving advice is not a constitutional violation	Recommendation alone cannot create liability; Rhein could have sought immediate Director hearing but likely would have lost without evidence
Whether Coffman is entitled to qualified immunity for any delay-based claim	Rhein: Delay violated clearly established rights	Coffman: Either not the decisionmaker or no clearly established standard for timing of restoration under Second Amendment	Court did not need to resolve qualified-immunity timing question because Coffman not liable on the merits; also timing standards under Second Amendment are unsettled

Key Cases Cited

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (recognizing disqualification of an investigator from acting as adjudicator in post-deprivation proceedings)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (due-process notice and opportunity to be heard requirements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (no supervisory or vicarious liability under §1983 without personal involvement)
Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. en banc) (limits on vicarious liability in Bivens/§1983 context)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (definition and treatment of "true threats")
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (distinguishing protected political hyperbole from true threats)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (Seventh Circuit en banc on firearms disqualification consequences of violent threats)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment guarantees and open questions about implementation)
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (First Amendment requires prompt decisions when speech is restricted)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy-trial balancing test showing variability in timing requirements)