Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia
Decision Date | 21 May 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 18-7102,18-7102 |
Citation | 924 F.3d 570 |
Parties | Ronald Eugene DUBERRY, et al., Appellees v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellant |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mary L. Wilson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General, and Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General.
Aaron Marr Page argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was F. Peter Silva.
Dan M. Peterson was on the brief for amici curiae Western States Sheriffs’ Association, et al. in support of appellees and in support of affirmance.
Before: Rogers and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Rogers concurring in part.
Subject to certain conditions, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act ("LEOSA") authorizes "qualified retired law enforcement officer[s]" to carry concealed firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). Ronald DuBerry, Maurice Curtis, and Robert Smith ("Appellees") formerly served as correctional officers with the Washington, D.C. Department of Corrections ("DCDOC"). After they had separated from service in good standing, see id. § 926C(c)(1), Appellees sought to invoke LEOSA so that they would be able to carry concealed firearms as "qualified retired law enforcement officers." The District of Columbia ("District") refused to issue the necessary certification forms for Appellees, however. The District claimed that, as former corrections officers, Appellees never had statutory powers of arrest and, therefore, could not claim any rights under LEOSA. Appellees then initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require the District to recognize them as "qualified retired law enforcement officers" for purposes of LEOSA. The District Court dismissed Appellees’ complaint for failure to state a claim. This court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. DuBerry v. District of Columbia ("DuBerry I "), 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
In DuBerry I , we found that "LEOSA’s plain text, purpose, and context show that Congress intended to create a concrete, individual right to benefit individuals like [Appellees] and that is within the competence of the judiciary to enforce." 824 F.3d at 1054–55 (citation omitted). We rejected the District’s theory that rights under LEOSA "attach" only after officers have obtained requisite identifications. Id. at 1055. We therefore held that Appellees had "sufficiently alleged that the federal right they seek to enjoy has been unlawfully deprived by the District of Columbia to be remediable under Section 1983." Id.
On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment for Appellees, holding that they had met three of LEOSA’s statutory requirements necessary to be considered "qualified retired law enforcement officers." DuBerry v. District of Columbia , 316 F. Supp. 3d 43, 58 (D.D.C. 2018). Specifically, the court found that each Appellee, in his prior position, possessed "statutory powers of arrest," served as a "law enforcement officer" for an aggregate of at least 10 years, and separated from service in good standing. See 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c). Appellees did not ask the District Court to determine whether they had "identifications" sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d). Therefore, the court did not address this issue. Instead, the District Court simply noted that "whether or not [Appellees] have sufficient identification is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether they have met certain statutory preconditions to be considered ‘qualified retired law enforcement officers.’ " DuBerry , 316 F. Supp. 3d at 58. The District now appeals.
The District presses two arguments on appeal. The principal claim raised by the District is that, under LEOSA, "to carry a concealed weapon, an individual must be both a qualified retired law enforcement officer and hold an identification issued by his former government employer stating that he was a law enforcement officer." District Br. at 14 (emphasis in original). Therefore, according to the District, "since [Appellees] lack the proper identification, they have no enforceable right that is remediableunder Section 1983." Id. at 15. The District also suggests that Appellees lack standing to pursue this action, because "even assuming [Appellees] have a viable claim under Section 1983," they have failed to "show a causal link between the District’s alleged misconduct and their injury." See id. at 16. In other words, according to the District, Appellees have "failed to show that, but for the District’s refusal to complete their employment certification forms, they would have been entitled to carry under LEOSA." Id.
We find no merit in the District’s contentions. The first argument is foreclosed by DuBerry I . The second argument completely misapprehends the relief sought and obtained by Appellees in this litigation. Appellees are not seeking a declaration that they are entitled to carry firearms pursuant to LEOSA. Rather, they have sought to overturn the District’s unlawful refusal to certify them as "qualified retired law enforcement officers," which is necessary in order for them to pursue the right to carry under LEOSA. Therefore, it does not matter whether Appellees have yet to obtain the identifications required by Section 926C(d). As the District Court correctly noted, the requirements of Section 926C(d) are not at issue in this case. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The District Court’s opinion cogently explains the relevant portions of LEOSA, as follows:
Appellees worked as correctional officers with the DCDOC for at least sixteen years before retiring in good standing. As correctional officers, they were responsible for the treatment, custody, counseling, and supervision of individuals incarcerated in District correctional facilities. Following their retirements, and starting in approximately November 2012, Appellees individually sought to exercise concealed-carry rights under LEOSA.
The District Court’s opinion lucidly recounts the facts leading to Appellees’ initiation of this litigation after the District denied their requests for certifications required by LEOSA:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simon v. Republic of Hung.
...the "law of the case" runs headlong into the existence of a later "intervening change in controlling law," DuBerry v. District of Columbia , 924 F.3d 570, 579 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Such a change is a "primary example[ ]" of the types of "extraordinary circumstances" under which a court may reco......
-
Chi. Teachers Union v. DeVos
...between the injury" and the Federal Defendants’ conduct. Disability Rights Wis., Inc. , 522 F.3d at 802 ; Duberry v. District of Columbia , 924 F.3d 570, 581 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (causation and redressability "are closely related[,] like two sides of a coin") (citation and quotation marks omitt......
-
Libertarian Nat'l Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n
... ... 18-5227 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued November 30, 2018 Decided May 21, 2019 Alan Gura argued the cause and filed the ... ...
-
Me. Lobstermen's Ass'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.
...the lobstermen could "remove this barrier" to lifting the rule, which is enough for standing to challenge it. Duberry v. District of Columbia, 924 F.3d 570, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Last, the Maine Lobstermen's Association has associational standing to bring suit on behalf of its injured membe......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...(11th Cir. 2007) (cognizable § 1983 claim under Driver Privacy Protection Act because Act conferred enforceable right); DuBerry v. D.C., 924 F.3d 570, 578-80 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (cognizable § 1983 claim under Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act because Act conferred enforceable right). 3203. ......