Meyers v. Schmitz
| Decision Date | 03 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-17-0395,4-17-0395 |
| Citation | 2018 IL App (4th) 170395 -U |
| Parties | JOSHUA D. MEYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEO P. SCHMITZ, Director of the Illinois State Police, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County
Honorable Rudolph M. Braud, Jr., Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, after finding (1) plaintiff was not entitled to relief based on the cancellation of his resident concealed carry license, and (2) the Illinois State Police did not violate the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act and the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act by refusing to accept plaintiff's application for a nonresident concealed carry license because Florida firearm laws are not "substantially similar" to Illinois firearm laws.
¶ 2 Plaintiff, Joshua D. Meyers, appeals the judgment of the circuit court denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Leo P. Schmitz as Director of the Department of the Illinois State Police (Department). On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) he is entitled to relief because the Department improperly "cancelled" his resident concealed carry license (CCL) upon learning that he was no longer an Illinois resident and (2) the Department violated the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act (Concealed Carry Act) and the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by refusing to accept plaintiff's application for a nonresident CCL because Florida firearm laws are "substantially similar" to Illinois firearm laws. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 In February 2013, the Department issued plaintiff an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card. After obtaining a FOID card—a prerequisite for obtaining a CCL—plaintiff applied for and received a resident CCL in February 2014. See 430 ILCS 66/25(2) (West 2016). In June 2014, plaintiff moved to Florida but continued to spend a substantial amount of time in Illinois. In January 2015, plaintiff surrendered his Illinois driver's license to the State of Florida in order to obtain a Florida driver's license.
¶ 6 In May 2015, the Department, while conducting routine quarterly background checks, became aware plaintiff resided in Florida. The Department mailed to plaintiff's Florida residence a letter informing him of the "cancellation" of his resident CCL because he no longer held a valid Illinois driver's license as required under section 30(b)(2) of the Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66/30(b)(2) (West 2016)). Subsequently, the Department "cancelled" plaintiff's FOID card under section 4(2)(xiv) of the FOID Card Act (430 ILCS 65/4(2)(xiv) (West 2016)). Going forward, when we discuss the cancellation or revocation of plaintiff's resident CCL, we are also referring to the Department cancelling or revoking plaintiff's FOID card.
¶ 7 Plaintiff contends he never received the cancellation letter and only learned of the Department's actions in June 2015 when he noticed that the Department's website reflected the status of his CCL as "cancelled." Upon learning his resident CCL had been "cancelled," plaintiff contacted the Department by email and initiated communications that lasted several days. On June 8, 2015, an unidentified Department administrator responded to plaintiff's initial email andindicated that plaintiff was ineligible for a resident CCL because he resided in Florida. The administrator added that if plaintiff had moved to a state with "substantially similar" firearm laws—Florida was not such a state—he could have reapplied for a CCL as a nonresident.
¶ 8 Plaintiff asked for clarification on how Florida firearm laws were not "substantially similar" to Illinois firearm laws. In response, the administrator wrote that the Department did not consider Florida laws "substantially similar" to Illinois laws because Florida's licensing scheme did not prohibit the use or possession of firearms by those voluntarily admitted to a mental-health facility, which is one of the five points of comparison. The administrator declined to "debate" the issue with plaintiff and explained that the Department based its "substantially similar" determinations on a yearly survey sent to all states.
¶ 9 Plaintiff obtained the October 2013 concealed carry survey the Department sent to Florida and the May 2014 response it received. The survey requested responses to six questions. The questions derived from the Department's rules defining "substantially similar." See 20 Ill. Adm. Code 1231.10 (2014). Specifically, the questions were:
¶ 10 On June 11, 2015, plaintiff wrote a letter to the director asking for an administrative hearing on the cancellation of his resident CCL and for its "reinstatement" based on his claim that Florida firearm laws were "substantially similar" to Illinois firearm laws. Plaintiff also completed a paper application for "administrative review" of the "revocation" of his resident CCL. Plaintiff asked the Department for a receipt of his request for a hearing. Subsequently, a Department administrator informed plaintiff that he was not eligible for administrative review. The administrator explained that plaintiff was not entitled to a hearing under section 87(a) of the Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66/87(a) (West 2016)) because his resident CCL was "not denied, revoked, or suspended."
¶ 11 Plaintiff then tried to apply for a nonresident CCL independently from his application for administrative review of the cancellation of his resident CCL. However, because the Department's website did not allow him to select Florida as his state of residence based on the prior determination that Florida firearm laws were not "substantially similar" to Illinois firearm laws, plaintiff was unable to get beyond the first page of the online application.
¶ 13 In November 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint against the director in the circuit court of Sangamon County. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that (1) the cancellation of his resident CCL was void because the Department's policy of canceling CCLs without a hearing violated the Concealed Carry Act and the APA and (2) the Department's policies governing the determination of whether an applicant lived in a "substantially similar" state for nonresidentpurposes violated the APA. The plaintiff also sought reasonable attorney fees and costs. Director Schmitz moved to remand the case to the Department for further proceedings, noting that plaintiff's resident CCL should have been deemed "revoked" instead of "cancelled" for purposes of section 87 of the Concealed Carry Act, thereby entitling plaintiff to an administrative hearing on the revocation. Plaintiff objected, arguing remand was not the appropriate remedy because he did not bring a complaint under the Administrative Review Law and that any hearing before the Department would be "meaningless" because the Department had "already concluded that any resident of Florida would be prohibited" from applying for a nonresident CCL.
¶ 14 In March 2016, the circuit court determined that plaintiff's request for declaratory relief amounted to an improper collateral attack on a final administrative decision, that decision being the revocation of plaintiff's resident CCL. Specifically, the court held that plaintiff's complaint was a request for administrative review and that the appropriate remedy was to remand the case to allow plaintiff to receive an administrative hearing on the revocation of his resident CCL. The court also found the Department's actions did not invoke the "contested case" provisions of the APA and because plaintiff had a post-deprivation hearing available to him, no violation of plaintiff's right to due process occurred.
¶ 15 Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, arguing Director Schmitz filed no responsive pleadings, and a motion to reconsider the order for remand. The court denied both motions.
¶ 17 In September 2016, an administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Department held an administrative hearing on the revocation of plaintiff's resident CCL. At the time of the hearing,plaintiff testified that while he currently lived in both Illinois and Florida, he did not have a permanent residence in Illinois.
¶ 18 At the administrative hearing, plaintiff did not contest that the Concealed Carry Act allowed the Department to revoke a resident CCL when the licensee became a "properly identified resident of a different state[,]" but he wanted a chance to prove that he was entitled to a nonresident CCL. Plaintiff argued that he should have been allowed to complete a nonresident CCL application and the Department's refusal to provide him an administrative hearing denied him the chance to...
To continue reading
Request your trial