Bagdonas v. Department of Treasury, 95-2143

• Decision Date: 23 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-2143,95-2143
• Citation: 93 F.3d 422
• Parties: Joseph K. BAGDONAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, United States of America, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 422

93 F.3d 422

Joseph K. BAGDONAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, United States of America, and Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-2143.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 10, 1996.

Decided Aug. 23, 1996.

Tracy C. Beggs (argued), Burditt & Radzius, Chicago, IL, Brian Frankl, Peterson & Ross, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jack Donatelli, Sherri L. Thornton (argued), Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Chicago, IL, James B. Burns, Office of U.S. Attorney, Chicago, IL, Thomas P. Walsh, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BAUER, FLAUM and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

When Joseph Bagdonas was convicted of the illegal possession and sale of an unregistered weapon, one of the penalties imposed on him was loss of the right to possess firearms. After he served his sentence and probationary period, he sought relief from that disability. He applied to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), who, as the delegatee of the Secretary of the Treasury, is authorized to make the final decision on the application. The BATF denied his application. Mr. Bagdonas then sought review of that decision in the district court. The court granted summary judgment to the Secretary and the BATF. Mr. Bagdonas now appeals that judgment.

I BACKGROUND

The underlying facts in this case are not disputed. Mr. Bagdonas was convicted in June 1979 for the illegal possession and sale of an unregistered silencer-fitted gun (a In its consideration of Mr. Bagdonas' application, the BATF assigned Special Agent Howard A. Marcus to interview Mr. Bagdonas, the neighbors and acquaintances that he listed as character references, present and past employers, an undercover BATF agent who was present at Mr. Bagdonas' arrest, and two former parole officers. The investigator also checked Mr. Bagdonas' military and law enforcement records.

                weapon he had made from lawn mower mufflers) to BATF agents.   See 26 U.S.C. § 5861.  He was sentenced to a term of five years;  thirty days was spent in prison and the remainder on probation.  As a result of the conviction, Mr. Bagdonas was prohibited from possessing any firearms or ammunition.  18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 1  However, in November 1986 he applied for relief from the disabilities imposed under section 922(g)(1).  He sought restoration of his firearms privileges under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). 2
                

Many of the responses received from these interviews were positive. Mr. Bagdonas was reported to be a good tenant, a friendly and quiet neighbor who kept to himself, and an outstanding and dedicated employee. The investigation uncovered no arrests after his 1979 arrest on the federal firearms charge. However, the special agent learned some negative information as well: (1) Mr. Bagdonas' military records indicated that he was discharged due to emotional instability after he had served less than 180 days of active duty. (2) In 1977, Mr. Bagdonas had been arrested and charged under Ohio law with improper handling of a loaded firearm; he was fined $100. (3) The circumstances surrounding Mr. Bagdonas' 1979 federal conviction involved the sale of three silencers. During the sale to the BATF agent, an associate of Mr. Bagdonas pointed a machine gun at the undercover BATF agent to "cover" Mr. Bagdonas. (4) A neighbor of Mr. Bagdonas at the trailer park stated that she was afraid of him. (5) One former employer told the agents that Mr. Bagdonas was untrustworthy.

In his report Special Agent Marcus concluded that Mr. Bagdonas might "act in a manner dangerous to public safety in the future, consistent with behavior from the past." R.19, Report of Investigation, at 10. He recommended that the application be denied. The Group Supervisor, Christopher P. Sadowski, and Special Agent in Charge, Hassel R. Caudill, each concurred in that recommendation. One operations officer disagreed with the recommendation, however, because, in his view, information in the investigation report was very positive.

Mr. Bagdonas' application for relief was denied on September 27, 1988. ³ After receiving that notification, on October 10, 1988, Mr. Bagdonas wrote Stephen Higgins, BATF Director, requesting the reasons for his decision.

                In a letter dated June 28, 1989, the Director of the BATF stated that the previous denial of relief was fully supported, but informed Mr. Bagdonas that he could reapply in two years. 4  On August 30, 1993, he did reapply by asking for reconsideration of his earlier application.  The BATF Director again denied his request. 5
                

On May 3, 1994, Mr. Bagdonas filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of the BATF's denial of his application. ⁶ According to the complaint, the BATF considered only the negative responses in its investigation and then denied Mr. Bagdonas' application. The district court reviewed the administrative record and determined that the BATF did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied relief to Mr. Bagdonas. Concluding that the BATF had a rational basis for its denial of Mr. Bagdonas' application for relief of federal firearms disability, the district court granted the Secretary's and BATF's motion for summary judgment and denied Mr. Bagdonas' cross-motion for summary judgment. Bagdonas v. United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 884 F.Supp. 1194 (N.D.Ill.1995).

II

DISCUSSION

A.

A district court's ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Barefield v. Village of Winnetka, 81 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir.1996). Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is appropriate only when the record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). With cross-motions, our review of the record requires that we construe all inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 774 (7th Cir.1996).

In this case the district court was asked to review a decision of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The court was required to set aside an agency action that it finds to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Bradley v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 736 F.2d 1238, 1240 (8th Cir.1984) (applying standard to BATF denial of restoration of firearms rights). That standard of review, established by the Administrative Procedure Act, is a narrow, highly deferential one. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823-24, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). The district court must consider the agency action valid as long as it appears from the administrative

                record that the decision was supported by a "rational basis."  Bradley, 736 F.2d at 1239-40;  cf.  Kitchens v. Department of the Treasury, 535 F.2d 1197, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.1976) (reviewing BATF Director's statement of reasons to determine whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious).  However, narrow and deferential review does not equate with no review at all.  The inquiry still must be thorough and probing.  Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415, 91 S.Ct. at 823.   Most importantly, although the court is to "uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned," Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286, 95 S.Ct. 438, 442, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974), it may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given.  SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947).  "The statement of reasons need not include detailed findings of fact but must inform the court and the petitioner of the grounds of decision and the essential facts upon which the administrative decision was based."  Kitchens, 535 F.2d at 1200.   We must satisfy ourselves that the agency "examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' "  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.  Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866-67, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 245-46, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962));  see also Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415-16, 91 S.Ct. at 823-24;  Kitchens, 535 F.2d at 1200
                

B.

Upon examination of the opinion of the district court, it appears that the court may have misapprehended its obligation to focus on the reason given for the administrative action by the agency. See Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. at 196, 67 S.Ct. at 1577. This analytical lapse is somewhat understandable because the agency, in its initial action on the application as well as on the requests for reconsideration, failed to give even the sort of explanation that would meet the very undemanding criteria that we have set forth in the proceeding section. Stripped of bureaucratic doublespeak, the agency's final decision and its subsequent disposition of the requests for reconsideration simply state that the agency does not believe that the statutory criteria have been met. Even under the deferential standard of review applicable here, this explanation is not satisfactory. A court cannot fulfill its statutory duty to review the agency's determination if the agency does not state, in even the most truncated fashion, the basis for its decision. See Townson v. Secretary of the Treasury, 896 F.Supp. 1155, 1158 (S.D.Ala.1995). Such laxity on the part of the agency not only prevents the court from fulfilling its mandate under the statute, it even...