Singleton (Thomas) v Kelly (ISP) - FOID/CCL appeal delays

[Euler]

The case was originally filed with the caption Thomas v ISP in January 2020. Thomas and Lazic (the other individual plaintiff) were joined by the SAF and ISRA.

 

Docket

Complaint said:

...

Possession of a valid FOID card is a prerequisite for an Illinois resident to obtain a CCL.

 

[Ryan] Thomas and [Goran] Lazic wishes to obtain a FOID card in order to be able to obtain and possess a firearm for self-defense and defense of family, as well as to obtain/renew their CCLs. Lazic also wishes to go to the firing range for practice, but cannot do so without a FOID card. Thomas is also a hunter and would go with friends and family if he were able, which of course he cannot because he lacks a FOID card.

 

Thomas and Lazic meet all qualifications for a FOID card, and there is no lawful reason for the Defendants to deny Thomas' and Lazic's pending FOID appeals, much less to fail to ever respond to them.

 

Likewise, the only reason Thomas and Lazic currently have an inability to obtain and/or renew their CCLs is the wrongful deprivation of their FOID cards.

...

WHEREFORE, Thomas and Lazic pray this Honorable Court:

 

a. find that the Defendants have unjustifiably denied Thomas and Lazic their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense;

 

b. find that the Defendants have unjustifiably denied Thomas and Lazic their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights;

 

c. enter an order granting Thomas and Lazic injunctive relief that enjoins the Defendants from further deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights to keep and bear arms and right via lack of procedural due process;

 

c.^sic enter amandatory injunction requiring the Defendants to issue Thomas and Lazic FOID cards;

 

d. award Thomas and Lazic monetary damages for the deprivations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights;

 

e. award Plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983; and,

 

f. award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as it deems just.

 

Dovoni R. Singleton and Manish Motwani were subsequently added as an individual plaintiffs, and Thomas and Lazic were removed as individual plaintiffs. The case was recaptioned Singleton v Kelly on 9 June 2021. The claims for monetary damages were dismissed, as well.

 

Opinion said:

...

For the stated reasons, the defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Thomas and Lazic and denied as to Singleton; all the plaintiffs' claims (including Motwani's) for money damages are dismissed; and ISRA and the SAF's standing is limited to those issues raised by Motwani and Singleton.

 

That last bit means SAF and ISRA were not granted associational standing for unnamed organization members, nor were they granted the ability to claim harm to themselves by not being able to fully engage the individual plaintiffs as members. (ISRA had claimed in an answer filing that people without FOIDs cannot join the ISRA range, for which the ISRA charges separate dues.)

[Euler]

On October 12, the judge announced that discovery will end January 26, 2023, and she will not extend that date. She asked the parties to include the status of depositions by December 16. Although she didn't say it, the implication is that she'll probably announce the rest of the case schedule then or shortly thereafter.

[Euler]

On December 20, plaintiffs and defendants jointly requested that the court put this case on hold for 3 months on the grounds that it may soon be moot.

 

At this time, the only remaining claim is that ISP denied plaintiff Manish Motwani a FOID after an appeal for failure to provide additional documentation. However, there is no evidence that Motwani was ever notified of such a request. ISP has agreed to re-open Motwani's appeal.

 

So if Motwani gets his FOID by March (or if ISP comes up with a better reason to deny him one), this case gets dismissed.

[Euler]

On 12/21/2022 at 9:53 PM, Euler said:

On December 20, plaintiffs and defendants jointly requested that the court put this case on hold for 3 months on the grounds that it may soon be moot.

...

 

On December 22, the judge granted the motion. Parties have until March 24 to decide how to proceed, including deciding whether to ask for dismissal for mootness.

[Upholder]

Extensions requested by the defense from the docket:

1. Feb 28, 2020 - Docket entry #7 - MOTION by Defendants Illinois State Police, Brendan F. Kelly, Jessica Trame for extension of time to file answer (Kozar, Amanda) (Entered: 02/28/2020), granted to 3/29/2020
2. July 10, 2020 - Docket entry #22 - MOTION by Defendants Illinois State Police, Brendan F. Kelly, Jessica Trame for extension of time to file answer to Amended Complaint (Kozar, Amanda) (Entered: 07/10/2020), granted to 8/9/2020
3. Aug 10, 2020 - Docket entry #24 - MOTION by Defendants Illinois State Police, Brendan F. Kelly, Jessica Trame for extension of time to file answer (Kozar, Amanda) (Entered: 08/10/2020), granted 8/24/2020
4. Dec 11, 2020 - Docket entry #39 - MOTION by Defendants Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kelly, Jessica Trame for extension of time to file answer (Kozar, Amanda) (Entered: 12/11/2020), granted to 12/21/2020
5. Feb 26, 2021 - Docket entry #50 - MOTION by Defendants Brendan F. Kelly, Jessica Trame for extension of time to file response/reply (in support of partial motion to dismiss) (Kozar, Amanda) (Entered: 02/26/2021), granted 3/5/2021
6. Oct 13, 2021 - Docket entry #62 - MOTION by Defendants Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kelly, Jessica Trame for extension of time to file answer regarding amended complaint 34 (Unopposed) (Johnston, Mary) (Entered: 10/12/2021), granted to 10/29/2021
7. Dec 20, 2022 - Docket entry #82 - MOTION by Defendants Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kelly to stay (Joint) (Johnston, Mary) (Entered: 12/20/2022), granted status report 3/24/2023

 

Docket entries 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21 are all COVID related delay orders.

 

The ISP requested 6 extensions and 1 stay. (+COVID delays)

[Euler]

On March 24, plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint status report, in which they state that they intend to ask for a dismissal, citing the creation of the FOID Review Board. They ask for 21 days to file the request.

[mab22]

On 3/24/2023 at 7:26 PM, Euler said:

On March 24, plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint status report, in which they state that they intend to ask for a dismissal, citing the creation of the FOID Review Board. They ask for 21 days to file the request.

Does the FOID board actually exist, and is it staffed, or are we just throwing in the towel?

[Euler]

On 3/25/2023 at 6:07 PM, mab22 said:

Does the FOID board actually exist, and is it staffed, or are we just throwing in the towel?

 

My understanding is that is has more than half its members appointed, so it's actually working. I have no knowledge how well.

 

The three cases were: FOID delays, CCL delays, and (this one) FOID/CCL appeal delays. The other two have already been given up. My perception is that none of the three cases, individually or together, actually had any effect at all.

[davel501]

Wasn't there a case attacking the secret court itself? I thought someone was trying to see the evidence against them. 

[Euler]

On 3/25/2023 at 9:40 PM, davel501 said:

Wasn't there a case attacking the secret court itself? I thought someone was trying to see the evidence against them. 

 

You might be thinking of Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Weiner v Kelly - Clear and Present Danger.

 

C&PD is the only truly secret proceeding, where the subject is prevented from knowing the testimony against him, who provided it, and the opportunity for cross-examination, but it's not any kind of court.

 

From traffic tickets to asset seizure to suspension of civil liberties, the rational for extra-judicial, executive actions is that the subject is not charged with a crime, therefore the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments do not apply.

[Euler]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:26 PM, Euler said:

On March 24, plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint status report, in which they state that they intend to ask for a dismissal, citing the creation of the FOID Review Board. They ask for 21 days to file the request.

 

On March 27, the judge made a minute entry stating that she expects parties to file a stipulation to dismiss before April 13. Otherwise there will be a status meeting on April 13.

[Euler]

On March 31, the parties stipulated dismissal as requested by the court.

 

On April 3, the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs.