238 F. Supp. 3d 395
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Six former Nassau County Sheriff’s Department officers retired on disability and applied for "good guy" letters (to carry pistols) which Sheriff Michael Sposato denied citing their medical/disabled retirements.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting procedural due process, Second Amendment, and equal protection claims; they also asserted ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, Monell municipal liability, and New York state-law claims for tortious interference and gross negligence.
- Defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in whole.
- Plaintiffs conceded, and the court held, that the Nassau County Police Department and Nassau County Sheriffs Department are not suable entities and dismissed them.
- The court dismissed plaintiffs’ procedural due process, Second Amendment, ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, and state-law tort claims; it denied dismissal of the equal protection claim and Monell municipal-liability claim, allowing the case to proceed on those grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NCPD and NCSD are suable entities | Departments can be sued as named defendants | Departments are administrative arms of the county and not separate legal entities | Dismissed those departmental defendants as not suable entities |
| Procedural due process—property/liberty interest in permit/good-guy letter | Plaintiffs have a property and/or liberty interest in continued firearm possession/license | Pistol permits/good-guy letters are discretionary under NY Penal Law; no protected entitlement | Dismissed due process claim—no protected property interest |
| Second Amendment—right to carry pistols | Denial of good-guy letters infringes right to bear arms | Plaintiffs may still obtain rifles/shotguns; only pistol-carry paperwork withheld; right not absolute | Dismissed Second Amendment claim—no infringement of core right alleged |
| ADA/Rehabilitation Act—disability discrimination | Denials were solely because of disability retirement; plaintiffs are disabled individuals excluded from service benefits | Plaintiffs do not allege major life activities are substantially limited; ability to possess firearms is not a major life activity; individual ADA liability improper | Dismissed ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims for failure to plead disability; individual-capacity ADA claims also dismissed |
| State-law torts—tortious interference & gross negligence | Defendants interfered with plaintiffs’ prospective economic relationships and grossly negligently denied letters | No allegations of third-party business relationships (tortious interference); licensing decision is discretionary so no duty to issue (gross negligence) | Dismissed both state-law claims |
| Equal protection and Monell municipal-liability | Plaintiffs were treated differently than non-disabled retirees; County had a pattern/practice of denials | Defendants argued dismissal—but factual dispute exists | Denied dismissal—plaintiffs plausibly pleaded disparate treatment and municipal policy/practice claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading framework)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess and carry weapons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment applicable to states)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (discretion defeats property interest in benefit)
- Finley v. Giacobbe, 79 F.3d 1285 (property interest and entitlement analysis)