Panzella v. Sposato
863 F.3d 210
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2012 a Family Court issued an ex parte temporary order of protection against Christine Panzella; the order included federal warning language but did not expressly require surrender of firearms.
- Nassau County sheriff’s deputies seized Panzella’s longarms after serving the Temporary Order; the Family Court later dismissed the protection proceeding when the petitioner withdrew.
- Nassau County maintains a Retention Policy: it retains longarms seized in connection with Family Court orders (even expired/dismissed ones) unless a court of competent jurisdiction orders their return.
- Panzella repeatedly requested return of her longarms; the County refused and she filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violation of procedural due process, a Second Amendment claim, Monell liability, and state-law replevin/conversion.
- The district court ordered the County to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing (following the framework in Razzano) and denied summary relief on state-law claims pending that hearing; it granted qualified immunity to certain individual defendants and rejected the Second Amendment claim.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the injunction requiring a prompt post-deprivation hearing but dismissed other aspects of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County’s retention of seized longarms without a prompt hearing violates procedural due process | Panzella: County’s Retention Policy denies property interest in longarms a timely, inexpensive forum; Article 78 is inadequate/slow; requires County to provide prompt post-deprivation hearing | County: State law and Article 78 provide adequate process; County lacks authority to return longarms absent a court order; safety justifies retention | Held: Due process requires a prompt post-deprivation hearing (per Razzano framework); injunction requiring County to provide such a hearing affirmed |
| Scope of appellate jurisdiction over district court’s order | Panzella: District court’s order is final/appealable under §1291? | County: Interlocutory; sought interlocutory review based on immunity denial | Held: Court lacked §1291 jurisdiction; had jurisdiction under §1292 only over injunctive relief; rest of appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether County’s adherence to state practice negates existence of a County policy for Monell purposes | Panzella: County policy in practice (Retention Policy) caused deprivation | County: Following state law cannot be a municipal policy triggering Monell liability | Held: Court addressed only injunction; Monell argument inapplicable to injunction posture and factual finding was that state law did not dictate the policy here |
| Qualified immunity and Second Amendment claims | Panzella: Entitled to relief on constitutional claims including Second Amendment | County/individuals: Qualified immunity shields individuals; Second Amendment claim lacks merit | Held: Qualified immunity granted to individual defendants on damage claims; Second Amendment claim rejected by district court (affirmed in scope reviewed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Razzano v. County of Nassau, 765 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (district decision establishing prompt post-deprivation hearing framework for returned longarms)
- Nnebe v. Davis, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (procedural-due-process two-step analysis: property interest and required process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor balancing test to determine what process is due)
- Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (qualified immunity does not shield defendants from injunctive or declaratory relief)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires a municipal policy or custom)