Sibley v. Watches

• Decision Date: 16 November 2020
• Docket Number: Case # 19-CV-6517-FPG
• Citation: 501 F.Supp.3d 210
• Parties: Montgomery Blair SIBLEY, Plaintiff, v. Chauncey J. WATCHES, solely in his official capacity as a New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law 265.00(10) Licensing Officer; Andrew Mark Cuomo, solely in his official capacity as the Chief Administrative Officer of the State of New York; James L. Allard, solely in his official capacity as Sheriff of Steuben County, New York; Brooks Baker, solely in his official capacity as District Attorney of Steuben County; and Keith M. Corlett, solely in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

501 F.Supp.3d 210

Montgomery Blair SIBLEY, Plaintiff,

v.Chauncey J. WATCHES, solely in his official capacity as a New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law 265.00(10) Licensing Officer; Andrew Mark Cuomo, solely in his official capacity as the Chief Administrative Officer of the State of New York; James L. Allard, solely in his official capacity as Sheriff of Steuben County, New York; Brooks Baker, solely in his official capacity as District Attorney of Steuben County; and Keith M. Corlett, solely in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Defendants.

Case # 19-CV-6517-FPG

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed November 16, 2020

Montgomery Blair Sibley, Corning, NY, pro se.

Gary M. Levine, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Rochester, NY, for Defendants Chauncey J. Watches, His Excellency Andrew Mark Cuomo, Keith M. Corlett.

David H. Fitch, Underberg & Kessler LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendant Brooks Baker.

DECISION AND ORDER

FRANK P. GERACI, JR., Chief Judge

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Montgomery Blair Sibley brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of New York State's laws banning the unlicensed possession of handguns and the possession of cane swords. ECF No. 56. Several motions are pending before the Court: (1) Defendant Brooks Baker's Motion to Dismiss Sibley's Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 59; (2) Defendants Keith M. Corlett, Andrew Mark Cuomo, and Chauncey J. Watches's Motion to Dismiss Sibley's Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 60; and (3) Sibley's Motion to Expedite, Request for Judicial Notice, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 65.

Because the substance of the motions substantially overlap, the Court considers all of the parties’ motions together. See Schreiber v. Friedman , No. 15-CV-6861 (CBA) (JO), 2017 WL 5564114, at *, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221610, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) (considering overlapping motions together). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and Sibley's motion to expedite, for judicial notice, and for a preliminary injunction is deemed MOOT.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Third Amended Complaint unless otherwise noted. In November 2017, Sibley moved from Washington, D.C. to Corning, New York, and brought two handguns and a cane sword with him. ECF No. 56 ¶ 10. On July 18, 2018, Sibley applied for a "carry concealed" handgun license in Steuben County, New York. Id. ¶ 12. He disclosed the possession of his two handguns on the application. Id. The application triggered an investigation, including a series of background checks. Id. To the best of Sibley's knowledge, these all came back negative for any criminal or mental health history. Id.

On December 28, 2018, as part of the investigation, Sibley was interviewed by a Steuben County Sheriff's Deputy. Id. ¶ 13. Following the interview, the Deputy told Sibley that possessing his handguns in his home without a license was illegal under N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1) and advised Sibley to get rid of them pending the decision on his application. Id. Sibley removed his handguns from New York. Id. He also removed his cane sword. Id.

On May 29, 2019, Defendant Chauncey J. Watches, a Steuben County judge and handgun licensing officer, sent Sibley a letter denying his "carry concealed" handgun license application. Id. ¶ 16. The denial letter stated that "the decision [was] based upon concerns expressed in the Sheriff's investigation," specifically "concerns about your being sufficiently responsible to possess and care for a pistol" and concerns "that your history demonstrates that you place your own interest above the interests of society." Id. The letter advised Sibley that he had the right to request a hearing at which he could testify and present witnesses. Id.

On June 14, 2019, Sibley requested a hearing. Id. at 17. But before the hearing could take place, on July 9, 2019, Sibley brought the instant action in this Court challenging Judge Watches's initial denial of his handgun license application and the constitutionality of New York's handgun licensing laws. ECF No. 1. The parties engaged in motion practice, and Sibley ultimately filed his Third Amended Complaint, the operative pleading. ECF No. 56.

The hearing before Judge Watches took place on January 10, 2020. ECF No. 56 ¶ 19. On March 9, 2020, Judge Watches issued a written decision confirming his denial of Sibley's handgun license application. ECF No. 56 ¶ 21. In it, Judge Watches found that Sibley had failed to demonstrate "good moral character" as required by N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)(b). ECF No. 56 at 24-27. His decision¹ explained, in relevant part:

Penal Law § 400 governs the issuance of pistol permits. The relevant question in this matter is that the applicant be of "good moral character." Penal Law § 400 1. (b). Good cause exists to deny a permit where the applicant lacks "the essential temperament of character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous [weapon] ..., or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit." Matter ofGurnett v. Bargnesi , 147 A.D.3d 1319, 47 N.Y.S.3d 173 [4th Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted].

Western civilization has long recognized that good moral character is the ideal state of a person's beliefs and values that provides the most benefit to a healthy and worthy society. Good moral character is more than having an unblemished criminal record. A person of good moral character behaves in an ethical manner and provides the Court, and ultimately society, reassurance that he can be trusted to make good decisions. Aldo Leopold said that "ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal." Given the nature of the responsibility involved with the handling of a dangerous weapon, the Court must be assured of the applicant's ability to follow the law and abide by rules and regulations necessary to protect the safety of the individual and society. The Court must also have a basis to trust that the applicant's character is such that he will behave in an ethical manner where there are no written rules. The evidence presented does not provide the Court with assurance that Mr. Sibley can follow specific laws, rules and regulations let alone behave in an ethical and responsible manner necessary to be granted a pistol permit. In short, Mr. Sibley has failed to demonstrate his good moral character.

The Court first notes that Mr. Sibley has been suspended from the practice of law in the State of Florida, the District of Columbia and the State of New York as well as various federal courts. This gives the Court pause in considering Mr. Sibley's application. The Preamble to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct notes that a lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is an officer of the legal system with special responsibility for the quality of justice. A lawyer has a duty to uphold the legal process and demonstrate respect for the legal system as well as further the public's understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system. Because Mr. Sibley has failed to maintain these duties as an officer of the legal system, the Court lacks confidence that Mr. Sibley will follow both the explicit and implicit rules inherent in the responsibility of a pistol permit holder.

Even assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Sibley has somehow rehabilitated himself from the circumstances that led to his disbarment, his testimony at the hearing belies any such notion. During his testimony, Mr. Sibley argued that although his actions as an attorney may have been vexatious and meritless they were not frivolous. This is a distinction without a difference and factually incorrect. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court held that Mr. Sibley's "frivolous and abusive filings must immediately come to an end" and found sanctions appropriate. Sibley v. Fla. Judicial Qualifications Comm'n , 973 So.2d 425, 427 [2006]. Even after his disbarment, Mr. Sibley has continued to pursue frivolous litigation in various courts. As recently as 2018, Mr. Sibley was sanctioned by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for his "frivolous and vexatious litigation strategy." CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Sibley , 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169864, *9 [Md. October 2, 2018].

Finally, this Court agrees with the Fourth Department's assessment of Mr. Sibley: "Respondent, by his conduct, has demonstrated his disregard and disrespect for the judiciary as well as his absence of remorse." [In re Sibley ] 61 A.D.3d 85, 87 [4th Dept. 2009]. Given these circumstances, the Court is unable to find Mr. Sibley to be of good moral character.

Based on Mr. Sibley's application, the testimony presented to the Court, the evidence received and upon due deliberation, the Court confirms the denial of the pistol permit application of Montgomery Sibley. Upon his readmission to the bar of New York, Mr. Sibley may submit a new application for a pistol permit.

ECF No. 56 at 24-27.

After the Third Amended Complaint was filed, on August 26, 2020, Sibley filed an Article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court of New York, Steuben County. ECF No. 60-1. The Article 78 proceeding remains pending and is set for a hearing in February 2021. ECF No. 70 at 1.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it states a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim for relief is plausible when the plaintiff pleads sufficient facts that allow the Court to draw reasonable inferences that the defendant is liable for the alleged conduct. Id. In considering the plausibility of a claim, the Court must accept all...