Sibley v. Watches

• Decision Date: 18 May 2020
• Docket Number: Case # 19-CV-6517-FPG
• Citation: 460 F.Supp.3d 302
• 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

460 F.Supp.3d 302

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 May 18, 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 Sibley Montgomery Blair Sibley brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of New York State's handgun licensing laws. ECF No. 18. Several motions are pending before the Court: (1) Defendant Chauncey J. Watches’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27); (2) Defendants Keith M. Corlett and Andrew Mark Cuomo's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32); (3) Sibley's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38); (4) Defendants James L. Allard and Brooks Baker's Cross Motion to Dismiss¹ the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40); and (5) Sibley's Motion for Oral Argument and Ratio Decidendi (ECF No. 47).

Because the substance of the motions substantially overlap, the Court considers all of the parties’ arguments and motions together. See Schreiber v. Friedman , No. 15-CV-6861 (CBA) (JO), 2017 WL 5564114, at *5, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221610, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) ; United States v. Jones , No. 5:05-CR-322 (NAM), 2006 WL 8457523, at *2-3, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105628 at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2006) (both considering overlapping motions together). For the reasons stated below, all Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and Sibley's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Additionally, Sibley's Motion for Oral Argument is DENIED, but his Motion for Ratio Decidendi (written decision) is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Amended Complaint unless otherwise noted. ECF No. 18. In November 2017, Sibley moved from Washington, D.C. to Corning, New York, and brought two handguns and a cane sword with him. On July 18, 2018, Sibley applied for a "carry concealed" handgun license in Steuben County, New York. Id. at 17-19. He disclosed the possession of his two handguns on the application.

The application triggered an investigation, including a series of background checks. To the best of Sibley's knowledge, these all came back negative for any criminal or mental health history.

On December 28, 2018, as part of the investigation, Sibley was interviewed by a Steuben County Sheriff's Deputy. 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 application process. Accordingly, Sibley removed his handguns (and cane sword) from New York. In March 2018, he legally purchased a shotgun.

On May 29, 2019, Defendant Chauncey J. Watches, a Steuben County judge and handgun licensing officer, sent Sibley a letter denying his handgun license application. ECF No. 18 at 20. 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 21. He also requested copies of all reports and communications that Watches received in the course of the investigation and copies of any legal or educational authorities he used to guide his decision to deny Sibley's application. Id. On June 25, 2019, Watches set a hearing for July 31, 2019 but denied Sibley's document requests as lacking a legal basis. Id. at 22.

Before the hearing could take place, on July 9, 2019, Sibley brought the instant action in this Court challenging Watches’ initial denial of his handgun license application and the constitutionality of New York's handgun licensing laws. ECF No. 1. Sibley later filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading. ECF No. 18.

The hearing was continued until January 10, 2020. On December 17, 2019, Sibley moved for a preliminary injunction in this Court to stop the hearing. ECF No. 23. This Court denied his motion on January 6, 2020. ECF No. 29. The January 10, 2020 hearing went forward as scheduled.

While Sibley awaited Watches’ final decision after the hearing, the parties engaged in extensive motion practice before this Court. On March 26, 2020, Sibley filed a Supplemental Memorandum based on "changed circumstances," informing the Court and the parties that Watches had denied Sibley's handgun license application on March 9, 2020. ECF No. 44-1. Sibley submitted Watches’ decision, in which Watches found that Sibley had failed to demonstrate "good moral character" as required by N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)(b). His decision explained:

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." 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. 44-1 at 11-13.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

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...