Williams v. McFadden
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-630-MOC |
| Decision Date | 01 August 2023 |
| Parties | SARA BETH WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GARRY MCFADDEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs Bruce Kane, Sara Beth Williams, Jason Yepko, Grass Roots North Carolina, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Rights Watch International. (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion for Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction or for Status Conference. (Doc. No 26). Also pending is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Defendants Garry L. McFadden and the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. (Doc. No. 16). The Court held a hearing on the motions on June 22, 2023.
To conceal carry a handgun in North Carolina, a person must first obtain a North Carolina Concealed Handgun permit (“CHP”). North Carolina statutes require a mental health check as a prerequisite to obtaining a CHP (hereinafter referred to as “the North Carolina mental health statutes”). In this action, Plaintiffs assert that the North Carolina mental health statutes relating to the CHP permitting process are unconstitutional on their face and as applied by Mecklenburg County Sheriff McFadden's and the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office's (“MCSO”). (Doc. No. 1). The individual Plaintiffs are Bruce Kane, Sara Beth Williams, and Jason Yepko. The organizational Plaintiffs are Grass Roots North Carolina, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Rights Watch International. The named Defendants are Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry L. McFadden and the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office.
Plaintiffs have asserted the following causes of action against Defendants: Count I: Violation of the Second Amendment, Id. ¶¶ 96-103; Count II: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Second Amendment, id. at ¶¶ 104-09; Count III: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process, id. at ¶¶ 110-16; and Count IV: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, id. at ¶¶ 117-26. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction against Sheriff McFadden “from impermissibly delaying the processing and issuance of concealed handgun permits.” (Doc. No. 1, p. 37).
Since the filing of the Complaint, the three individual Plaintiffs have received their CHP permits. Williams' application for a CHP was completed on February 23, 2022 (Doc. No. 1, p. 5), and after receipt of her mental health records, her permit was approved on November 18, 2022. (Doc. No. 14-2, p. 5).[1] Kane sought renewal of his CHP on July 11, 2022 (Doc. No. 1, p. 5), and his renewal application was approved on January 6, 2023. (Doc. No. 14-2, p. 5). Yepko sought renewal of his CHP in October 2021, filled out the proper forms by March 2022 (Doc. No. 1, p. 5), and his renewal application was approved on November 16, 2022. (Doc. No. 14-2, p. 5).
In opposing the motion for preliminary injunction and in support of the motion to dismiss, Defendants first argue that because the three individual Plaintiffs have received their CHP permits, the motion for preliminary injunction has been rendered moot. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs various constitutional challenges to the North Carolina statutes fail because the statutes are constitutional on their face and as applied by Sheriff McFadden and the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
First, under Rule 12(b)(1), the defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). Where a defendant files such motion, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). Additionally, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be brought on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to invoke the court's jurisdiction and, when made on those grounds, all the facts asserted in the complaint are presumed to be true. Id.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all of the factual allegations in the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). However, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” with the complaint having “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss only if it “states a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679 (citations omitted).
Any person in North Carolina with a valid CHP issued by his or her local Sheriff may carry a concealed handgun. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.11 Defendant Sheriff McFadden, like all North Carolina sheriffs, is responsible for administering the gun-permitting process, including applications for CHPs. See N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 14-402- 415.27. North Carolina is a “shall issue” state, meaning that Defendants do not have discretion to deny a CHP if the CHP applicant meets certain criteria. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.12.
An applicant must submit an application,[2] a nonrefundable permit fee of $90.00, a fee of $10.00 for fingerprinting (and submit to fingerprinting by the Sheriff), a certificate of completion of an approved course for handgun competency, and a release authorizing disclosure of any records concerning the “mental health or capacity”[3] of the applicant to determine whether s/he is disqualified from receiving a permit under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.12(a)(3). N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.13(a)(5).
After the applicant submits the items listed in N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.13, the Sheriff is authorized to “conduct any investigation necessary to determine the qualification or competency of the person applying for the permit.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a). Within ten days of the receipt of the items listed in N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.13, the “sheriff shall make the request for any records concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a). N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a) further provides that “within 45 days of the receipt of the items listed in G.S. 14-415.13 from an applicant, and receipt of the required records concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant, the sheriff shall either issue or deny the permit.” N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a).
Plaintiffs assert that the portions of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.13 through N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15 that are unconstitutional are N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 14-415.13(a)(5), and 14-415.15(a). (Doc. No. 21, p. 2). Plaintiffs concede the constitutionality of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.12(a)(3), which requires North Carolina Sheriffs to determine that an “applicant does not suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun.” As noted, the challenged statutes, N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 14-415.13(a)(5) and 14-415.15(a), require an individual to sign a release authorizing disclosure to the Sheriff of “any records concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant” to determine if the applicant is disqualified under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.12 (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.13(a)(5)), and allow the Sheriff to request these records within ten days, and require that the Sheriff either issue or deny the permit within forty-five days after receipt of these records. (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a)).
In their facial challenge to the North Carolina statutes, Plaintiffs contend that N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a) allows the Sheriff “vast and open-ended discretion” in requesting mental health records. (Doc. No. 21, p. 10). Defendant Sheriff McFadden responds that he does not request mental health records from every mental health provider in Mecklenburg County. He requests mental health records from seven mental health providers because he believes that the majority of Mecklenburg County residents who seek mental health treatment do so through one of those providers. (Doc. No. 14-2, ¶¶ 7-9). Defendant McFadden further contends that once he requests an applicant's mental health records, control of the process shifts to the mental health providers while Defendant McFadden waits for production of the records. Defendant McFadden further asserts that he cannot control how long it may take any given mental health provider to return the requested records. He contends that as long as he issues or denies the CHP within forty-five days of receiving those records, he has complied with the law. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-415.15(a).
The Court first addresses the motion to dismiss the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. In North Carolina, it is well established that “unless a statute provides to the contrary, only persons in being may be sued.” Coleman v. Cooper, 89 N.C.App. 188, 192 (1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial