Scofield v. Ledoux

DAVID S. SCOFIELD, Plaintiff, v. JUDYTH A. LEDOUX, Director of Industry Operations, Columbus Field Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00648

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

July 6, 2021

Jolson, Magistrate Judge.

OPINION & ORDER

ALGENON L. MARBLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Judyth A LeDoux's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff David S. Scofield filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 20). For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff David S. Scofield operates Dave's World in Lancaster, Ohio. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2). For years, he was a federally licensed firearms dealer and manufacturer, primarily selling firearms to law enforcement officers and qualified collectors. (Id.). His federal firearm license (“FFL”) was first issued in May 2010 and subsequently renewed in June 2016. (ECF No. 14 at 72). He operated his business as a sole proprietorship and has two registered persons on his license. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2). Individuals like Mr. Scofield are subject to the requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the “GCA”), codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-930. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) is the regulatory agency tasked with enforcing federal firearms laws, including the GCA. Defendant Judyth LeDoux is the Director of Industry Operations (“DIO”) for the Columbus field office of the ATF and oversees enforcement of the GCA as applied to licensed firearms dealers, including Mr. Scofield. Mr. Scofield's business is within the jurisdiction of the Columbus field office. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3).

1. November 2016 Traffic Stop and Subsequent Legal Proceedings

After Mr. Scofield successfully renewed his FFL license in June 2016, he was the subject of a traffic stop in Pickerington, Ohio. (ECF No. 14 at 121). On November 4, 2016, a police officer observed a driver, later identified as Mr. Scofield, weaving in his lane. (Id.). When the officer took his license and proof of insurance to her vehicle, she relayed his information to dispatch. (Id. at 122). Dispatch reported back to her that he had two arrest warrants in Akron; the officer requested backup. (Id.). When backup arrived, both officers approached Mr. Scofield's car and asked him to step out of the vehicle to be placed under arrest on the outstanding warrants. (Id.). Mr. Scofield refused to cooperate, but eventually submitted to arrest without incident. (Id.). The officers called a tow truck to impound the vehicle and officers conducted an inventory search of the car, which turned up a loaded handgun under the front seat and a knife in a compartment beneath the steering wheel. (Id. at 74-75, 123). In the trunk, officers also found additional knives, an AR-15, and additional magazines and ammunitions. (Id. at 123).

On November 10, 2016, Plaintiff was indicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County by a grand jury on two counts. He was charged with one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, an F4 offense, under O.R.C. § 2923.16, which prohibits knowingly transporting or having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle. (ECF No. 14 at 105). He was also charged with one count of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordinance, an F5 offense, under O.R.C. § 2923.17(A) and (D), which prohibit the knowing acquisition, possession, carrying, or use of any dangerous ordinance without legal authorization. (Id.). Mr. Scofield was arraigned on November 21, 2016 and entered pleas of not guilty to both counts. (ECF No. 14 at 109).

On May 9, 2017, the Common Pleas Court overruled a motion to suppress filed by Mr. Scofield, in which he had argued that the police lacked probable cause to stop his vehicle and that the Pickerington Police Department violated its own impound policies and procedures in his case. (Id. at 75, 124). Mr. Scofield entered a plea of No. Contest, was found guilty, and sentenced to five years of community control on January 29, 2018. (Id. at 75, 103-04, 109). The judgment against Mr. Scofield was filed on February 8, 2018. (Id. at 75).

On March 1, 2018, Mr. Scofield appealed the judgment overruling his motion to suppress and his sentence was stayed pending the appeal. (Id.). On February 1, 2019, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas Court. (Id. at 130). The appeals court found that the vehicle search was lawful as the decision to impound the car and conduct an inventory search were both appropriate. (Id. at 125, 128-29). No. appeal of that decision was filed within the 45-day window for appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. (Id. at 75).

On June 14, 2019, Mr. Scofield filed a pro se notice of appeal and a motion for delayed appeal of a felony conviction in the Supreme Court of Ohio. (ECF No. 14 at 131-32). In his motion for delayed appeal, Mr. Scofield detailed his caretaking obligations, his inability to locate an attorney, time spent incarcerated, and his pro se status as reasons to grant his request for a delayed appeal. (ECF No. 14 at 133-36). On August 6, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied his motion for a delayed appeal. (ECF No. 14 at 154).

On August 16, 2019, he filed an emergency motion for a stay of execution of his February 1, 2019 judgment entry pending resolution of his appeal. (ECF No. 14 at 151-52). In this emergency motion, he argued that the stay was necessary to prevent further seizure or forfeiture actions by the ATF. (Id. at 152). The same day, he filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asking them to reconsider the August 6 denial of his motion for a delayed appeal. (ECF No. 14 at 155). His emergency motion to stay and his motion for reconsideration were both denied on October 15, 2019. (Id. at 161).

While he pursued relief pro se before the Supreme Court of Ohio, Mr. Scofield also pursued post-conviction relief in the Common Pleas Court with the aid of counsel. On March 21, 2019, Mr. Scofield filed his initial petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 14 at 164-65, 174). He subsequently sought leave to amend his petition on May 2, 2019 because his counsel learned of additional information favorable to his petition. (Id. at 174). On March 27, 2020, the State of Ohio filed a response in opposition to his petition for post-conviction relief. (Id. at 187-94). On May 14, 2020, the Common Pleas Court issued a decision denying Mr. Scofield's petition for post-conviction relief, without holding a hearing on the petition. (Id. at 17, 195-98). On June 15, 2020, Mr. Scofield appealed this denial to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. (Id. at 200-01, 206-07). Both sides filed briefs by November 2020. (Id. at 210). In March 2021, the Fifth District Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the Common Pleas Court in denying his petition without a hearing. (ECF No. 17).

2. 2019 FFL Application and Denial

Amid these proceedings, Mr. Scofield's FFL was set to expire in June 2019. (ECF No. 14 at 72). Seeking to renew his FFL Mr. Scofield filed a renewal application with the ATF on April 17, 2019. (Id.). On his application, Mr. Scofield indicated that he had been convicted of a felony for which he could be imprisoned for more than one year and that he was in the process of appealing this conviction. (Id. at 98). As required by the application, Mr. Scofield attached an explanatory statement concerning his pending appeal. (Id. at 99). In this statement, he disclosed that he was convicted of a fourth-degree felony in Ohio. (Id.). Mr. Scofield further wrote that he was not guilty of the crime because he did not knowingly violate Ohio law. (Id.). He explained that, as of February 1, 2019, his appeal to the Fifth District Court of Ohio had failed but the matter was before the Ohio Supreme Court for consideration. (Id.). He also wrote that he was pursuing post-conviction relief in the Common Pleas Court of Fairfield County. (Id.). He concluded by noting that he planned to appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals “and/or” the U.S. Supreme Court “if necessary, to assert [his] Innocence of this matter.” (Id.). He concluded by informing the ATF that the two responsible persons on his FFL had no convictions and he wanted to keep his FFL active until his conviction was overturned. (Id.).

On May 1, 2019, the Chief of the Federal Firearms Licensing Center, a component of the ATF, sent a letter to Mr. Scofield that the criminal records check completed by the FBI and National Crime Information Center (NCIC) had returned information that indicated he was prohibited from possessing, shipping or transporting, and receiving firearms under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Id. at 74, 101). This correspondence informed Mr. Scofield that unless additional information was received and validated by the ATF, such as information regarding restoration of firearm rights, pardon, or expungement, he would be prohibited from receiving an FFL and possessing firearms. (Id. at 101). The correspondence provided an address to send additional information and informed Mr. Scofield that if additional information was not returned within 30 days, his FFL application would be considered abandoned. (Id.).

On July 24, 2019, DIO LeDoux issued a notice to deny the application for license to Mr. Scofield, sending notice via certified mail. (Id. at 73). The notice informed Mr. Scofield that the application “may be denied because the applicant does not qualify under the provisions of 18 U.S.C § 923(d).” (Id.)...