Marszalek v. Kelly

1

John M. Marszalek, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brendan Kelly, et al., Defendants.

No. 20-cv-4270

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

January 26, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARY M. ROWLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The State of Illinois requires individuals wishing to possess a firearm or ammunition to undergo an application process with the Illinois State Police. The Illinois State Police reviews each application and grants it so long as an individual is not statutorily disqualified. Plaintiffs, non-profit organizations Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, together with Plaintiff-Intervenors Bruce and Sarah Davidson, claim that the review process takes too long. Specifically, they claim that the Illinois State Police often takes ninety to one hundred twenty days to process applications in contravention of a state statute that requires the Illinois State Police to issue decisions within thirty days.

Plaintiffs and Intervenors claim that these “delays” have violated their Second Amendment rights; Plaintiffs also claim due process violations. They sue Brendan Kelly, the Director of the Illinois State Police, and Jacob Ingebrigsten and Jessica Trame, other officials who work or worked for the Illinois State Police. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' claims. [94]; [98]. For the reasons explained below, this Courts grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Intervenors' claims.

I. Background

A. The Illinois FOICA

The Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act makes it illegal for any person to acquire or possess a firearm, stun gun, taser, or firearm ammunition within Illinois without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card (FOID) issued by the Illinois State Police (ISP). 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 65/2(a). The Act requires the ISP to “either approve or deny all applications” for a FOID “within 30 days from the date they are received, ” subject to exceptions inapplicable here. 430 Ill. Comp. § 65/5(a). The ISP must approve a FOID application unless a disqualifying condition under the statute exists; those conditions include, among other things, a prior felony conviction, addiction to narcotics, and possession of an intellectual disability. 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 65/8; see Horsley v. Trame, 808 F.3d 1126, 1132 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Upon a sufficient showing regarding the applicant's criminal record, lack of dangerousness, and the public interest, the Director [of the ISP] may issue a card.”).

B. The Allegations

This Court accepts as true the following allegations from Plaintiffs' amended complaint [40] and Intervenors' amended complaint in intervention [91]. Crescent Plaza Hotel Owner, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 20 F.4th 303, 307 (7th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) operates a non-profit organization whose purposes include “securing the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms within Illinois, through education, outreach and litigation.” [40] ¶ 15. ISRA offers a firing range in Bonfield, Illinois for its members to use. Id. ¶ 16. ISRA alleges it knows of members who have applied for but have not received their FOID cards or have not had their applications denied within thirty days as the Act requires. Id. ¶ 17.

Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (SAF) is also a non-profit organization whose purposes include “education, research, publishing, and legal action focusing on the constitutional right privately to own and possess firearms.” Id. ¶ 19. Like ISRA, SAF asserts it knows of members whose FOID card adjudications are overdue past the thirty days set forth in the Act. Id. ¶ 20.^[1]

Defendant Brendan Kelly is ISP's Director. Id. ¶ 22. The ISP constitutes a department of Illinois' executive branch and has responsibility for administering the system of considering applications for FOID cards. Id. ¶ 23. Defendant Jarod Ingebrigsten serves as the Bureau Chief of the Firearm Services Bureau, a division of ISP. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs sue Kelly and Ingebrigsten in their official capacities. Id. ¶¶ 24, 26.

Plaintiffs claim that despite the statutory requirement, the ISP often fails to approve or deny new FOID card applications within thirty days. Id. ¶ 31. Some applicants wait ten to fifteen weeks to receive their FOID cards. Id. ¶ 34. The amended complaint brings two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Intervenors Bruce and Sarah Davidson live in DuPage County and applied for FOID cards on July 20, 2020. [91] ¶¶ 1-2. They name as Defendants Kelly and Jessica Trame, who from July 20, 2020, through December 11, 2020, allegedly occupied the office of Bureau Chief of the ISP Firearms Services Bureau. Id. ¶ 3. The ISP eventually belatedly issued FOID cards to the Intervenors (to Sarah on November 12, 2020, and to Bruce on December 11, 2020). Id. ¶ 7. Intervenors purport to bring official capacity and individual-capacity claims against Defendants, alleging that Defendants “acted as individuals either to (i) expressly direct ISP employees to neglect FOICA state policy, or (ii) knowingly fail to direct ISP employees to comply with FOICA state policy.” Id. ¶ 10, 16. Intervenors assert that they suffered mental anguish and emotional distress “on account of their consequent disability fully to exercise their Second Amendment rights.” Id. ¶ 17.

C. Procedural History

This case commenced in July 2020 when ISRA and SAF brought suit, along with former plaintiffs D'Andre Bradley, Tara Moore, and Brett Shelton. [1]. A few months later, in September 2020, the Davidsons filed a motion to intervene, [20], which this Court granted in October 2020, [36]. Shortly after, in November 2020, the Davidsons filed their complaint in intervention and moved for a preliminary injunction; at the time, they were awaiting their FOID cards. [37]; [38]. The Davidsons later withdrew their motion for preliminary injunction. [52].

In November 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to substitute as new individual plaintiffs James Robinson, Matthew Sorenson, John Marzalek, and Natalie LaVallie. [40]. The next month, Plaintiffs Marszalek, SAF, and ISRA moved for a preliminary injunction on their Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims. [47].

After a hearing, this Court issued an opinion denying Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. See [87]. This Court found that: (1) the ISP granted Marszalek's FOID card, mooting his request for an injunction; (2) ISRA and SAF possessed associational standing; and (3) ISRA and SAF failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Id. This Court also separately granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Intervenors' complaint because the Eleventh Amendment barred their request for money damages and the ISP's issuance of their FOID cards mooted their request for injunctive relief. [81]. This Court also found that the Intervenors' complaint failed to adequately allege individual liability claims against Defendants because it did not assert any personal actions or decisions taken by the Defendants, only that Defendants maintained supervisory responsibility for the FOID program. Id. at 5. Subsequently, Intervenors amended their complaint. [91].

Defendants move now to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint [40] and Intervenors' amended complaint [91]. [94]; [98].

II. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a claim, not the merits of the case. Gunn v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 2020).

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the claim “must provide enough factual information to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). A court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all permissible inferences in the pleading party's favor. Degroot v. Client Servs., Inc., 977 F.3d 656, 659 (7th Cir. 2020). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).

Rule 12(b)(1), like Rule 12(b)(6), requires this Court to construe Plaintiffs' complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, accept as true all well-pleaded facts, and draw reasonable inferences in their favor. Bria Health Servs., LLC v. Eagleson, 950 F.3d 378, 382 (7th Cir. 2020); Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir. 2015). Courts evaluating Rule 12(b)(1) motions may look beyond the complaint to consider whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Silha, 807 F.3d at 173 (noting that a court “may look beyond the pleadings and view any evidence submitted” when reviewing a challenge that there is in fact no subject matter jurisdiction, even if the pleadings are formally sufficient).

III. Analysis

Defendants have moved to dismiss both Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' amended complaints. This Court will address the Plaintiffs' claims first, before turning to the Intervenors'.

A. Plaintiffs' Claims

ISRA and SAF remain as the sole Plaintiffs...