Lieberman v. MacMaster
| Decision Date | 21 August 2013 |
| Parties | John D. Lieberman, Plaintiff, v. Brian MacMaster, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Before the Court are the Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment And Incorporated Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 26) by Defendant Eric Holder ("Def.'s Mot."), Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant Holder's Motion To Dismiss And Plaintiff's Cross Motion For Summary Judgment With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law (ECF No. 30) ("Pl.'s Opp'n") and Plaintiff's Second Motion To Amend (ECF No. 48). On August 1, 2013, the Court held oral argument on Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Opposition. Prior to oral argument, the Court alerted both sides regarding its concerns surrounding subject matter jurisdiction and standing and invited supplemental briefing on those issues. (See ECF No. 43.) Having fully considered the parties' written and oral submissions, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claim and that Plaintiff's Motion To Amend is futile. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case.
In the fall of 1994, Plaintiff John Lieberman was involved in an assault on his then-wife. (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 10) ¶ 8; Somerset Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't Report & Summons (ECF No. 26-1).) On November 30, 1994, he was arraigned on the assault charge at the Skowhegan District Court in a mass arraignment before Judge Douglas Clapp. At the arraignment, Lieberman was not represented by counsel and alleges that he was not advised of his right to counsel or his right to request a jury trial. (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.)
Under Maine Rule of Criminal Procedure 22, Lieberman had to request a jury trial within 21 days of arraignment, or his right to a jury trial would be deemed waived. See Me. R. Crim. P. 22. Lieberman claims that he did not voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial on the assault charge because he was never informed of his right and was unaware that he had the right to have the case tried by a jury. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) Specifically, Lieberman asserts that at the mass arraignment on November 30, he was never advised of his right to a jury trial. (Lieberman Aff. ¶¶ 8-14, 21.) On March 20, 1995, Lieberman pled guilty, with counsel,1 to the assault charge. (Id.)
In 2011, Lieberman graduated from the Maine Criminal Justice Academy ("MCJA") and received his certification from the MCJA to act as a reserve police officer in the State of Maine.2(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15.) After completing the MCJA, Lieberman was hired by the Town of Dexter Police Department to act as a reserve officer. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Later in 2011, Lieberman was informed that an anonymous caller had contacted the Town of Dexter, suggesting that Lieberman was not permitted to possess a firearm and should not be a police officer. (Id. ¶ 16.) As a result of this call, "an investigation was conducted and the MCJA determined that Lieberman's 1995 conviction disqualified Lieberman from possessing a firearm under federal law because that conviction was considered by the MCJA to be a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)." (Id.) The MCJA told Lieberman that he could not act in a law enforcement capacity in Maine other than to perform administrative duties. (Id. ¶ 19.) According to Lieberman's Amended Complaint, "[t]he basis of [that] restriction was the inaccurate determination by the MCJA that Lieberman's conviction prohibited him from possessing a firearm." (Id.)
To support his claim for relief, Lieberman also indicates that he "has the present intention of purchasing and/or possessing firearms for use for self-defense in his own home, including a long rifle and a handgun." (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.)
On March 20, 2012, Lieberman brought suit against Brian MacMaster, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the MCJA and John Morris, Commissioner of the State of Maine Department of Public Safety. (Compl. (ECF No. 1).) Lieberman amended his complaint on August 23, 2012 to add Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, as a defendant. In his Amended Complaint, Lieberman alleged that "Mr. MacMaster and the MCJA are presently enforcing the restriction on Lieberman's ability to act fully as a law enforcement officer in Maine." (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) Lieberman further alleges that as Attorney General, "Mr. Holder ispresently enforcing unconstitutional laws, customs, practices and policies complained of [in the Amended Complaint]." (Id. ¶ 4.)
In his Amended Complaint, Lieberman asserted three causes of action: (1) Lieberman requested a declaratory judgment that "he is not prohibited from possessing a firearm by operation of federal law because his prior conviction for assault was not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and § 921(a)(33)." (Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) (2) Lieberman asserted a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that he is entitled to possess a firearm pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and that the restriction on his possession of a firearm violates his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26.) (3) Lieberman asserted a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the restriction on his ability to possess a firearm violated his rights under the Second Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 27-28.)
On February 15, 2013, Defendant Holder moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) on all three counts, and alternatively moved for summary judgment as to the first count. (See Def.'s Mot. at 1.) In his Opposition, Lieberman did not contest the dismissal of the second and third counts of the Amended Complaint. (Pl.'s Opp'n at 2.) Accordingly, the Court considers Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint dismissed without objection. On March 28, 2013, Lieberman stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of Brian MacMaster and John Morris. (Stipulation Of Dismissal (ECF No. 33).) Therefore, Defendant Holder is the only Defendant in this action, and Count I seeking a declaratory judgment is the sole count before the Court.
On July 2, 2013, the Court issued a Notice Of Hearing and a Procedural Order indicating that the Court would hold oral argument on August 1, 2013. (See ECF Nos. 43 & 44.) TheCourt requested that the parties be prepared to discuss the issues of whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Count I and whether Lieberman has standing to pursue that claim against Defendant Holder. The Court held oral argument on August 1, 2013. At oral argument, Lieberman indicated that he would like leave to amend his Amended Complaint to reflect an additional basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Motion To Amend was filed on August 13, 2013, nearly two weeks after oral argument. The Court now turns to the issues presented by this case.
Lieberman's sole remaining claim requests a declaratory judgment "that he is not prohibited from possessing a firearm by operation of federal law because his prior conviction for assault was not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and § 921(a)(33)." (Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) Before the Court can consider the merits of Lieberman's claim, the Court must have subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (); see also Florio v. Olson, 129 F.3d 678, 680 (1st Cir. 1997) () Lieberman asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331.3
The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, does not provide the Court with subject matter jurisdiction. The Declaratory Judgment Act states that "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The Act does not create an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts; it provides a remedy for disputes that have federal jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 17 (1983), superseded by statute as stated in Dep't of Revenue of State of Iowa v. Inv. Finance Mgmt. Co., Inc., 831 F.2d 790 (8th Cir. 1987) (). Thus, a federal court must have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction that empowers it to issue a declaratory judgment. Because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide a valid cause of action or a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must look outside of the Declaratory Judgment Act to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.4 See id.
At oral argument and in Plaintiff's Motion To Amend, Lieberman stated that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the Amended Complaint should be amended to reflect that basis for jurisdiction. The Court finds that even if theAmended Complaint were amended to reflect an assertion that the Court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial