417 F.Supp.3d 178
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Plaintiff Victor Juzumas obtained a Nassau County pistol (handgun) license in 2003; following a 2008 arrest his pistol license was suspended and in 2015 it was revoked for arrest history, a §371 conviction, and lack of good moral character.
- After the 2008 arrest officers initially seized the plaintiff's pistols and longarms; the longarms were returned weeks later; after revocation the County sent a letter instructing him to remove/transfer all firearms, rifles, and shotguns within 30 days.
- Nassau County maintains a written longarm return procedure (OPS 10023) and a 2014 bulletin stating that revoked handgun-licensees must surrender rifles/shotguns; the OPS 10023 procedure was not triggered here because the County did not take custody of the longarms after revocation.
- Plaintiff claims Nassau County policy effectively bans longarm possession whenever a pistol license is revoked and denies procedural due process for reclaiming/retaining longarms; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, Monell liability, and a § 1983 conspiracy.
- Court proceedings: parties cross-moved for summary judgment; plaintiff abandoned First Amendment and conspiracy claims; the court adjudicated the remaining claims on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment challenge to County practice regarding longarms | County policy unlawfully forbids possession of longarms after pistol-license revocation, effectively imposing a de facto longarm license requirement | County was enforcing New York Penal Law §400.00(11) (revocation consequences) and thus acted pursuant to state law | County wins on Second Amendment. Enforcement here was within state-law revocation authority, so no §1983 Second Amendment violation |
| Fourth Amendment (seizure) | Revocation notice and requirement to divest constituted a constructive government seizure of longarms | No government seizure occurred: County did not take or retain the guns and the plaintiff voluntarily transferred them | County wins on Fourth Amendment. No meaningful government seizure occurred |
| Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process | County provided no meaningful process before or after revocation to determine right to possess longarms; plaintiff was entitled to a prompt pre-deprivation hearing | No hearing required because County never seized the guns and had OPS 10023 for returns | Plaintiff wins on Fourteenth Amendment. Under Mathews v. Eldridge, due process required a prompt pre-deprivation hearing here (no exigency and high risk of erroneous deprivation) |
| Monell (municipal liability) | County policies and practices caused constitutional deprivations (esp. due process) | County argues no unconstitutional policy and that it merely enforced state law | Split: County wins as to Second and Fourth Amendment Monell claims; plaintiff wins as to Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process Monell claim |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognition of individual right to possess firearms subject to regulation)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment applicable to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Vives v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 346 (municipal liability when municipality makes meaningful, conscious choice to carry out state law)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Cty. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires action pursuant to official policy)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three‑factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- Razzano v. County of Nassau, 765 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. opinion criticizing Nassau’s longarm-return procedures and requiring prompt post‑deprivation process)
- Weinstein v. Krumpter, 386 F. Supp. 3d 220 (E.D.N.Y. decision analyzing sufficiency and promptness of Nassau longarm return process)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (Fourth Amendment seizure requires meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (discussing NY Penal Law §400.00 as exclusive licensing mechanism and licensing officer discretion)
- Dudek v. Nassau County Sheriff's Dep't, 991 F. Supp. 2d 402 (context on classification and regulation of longarms in the district)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden of production)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (§1983 requires state action and deprivation of federal right)