Zahareas v Raoul - C&PD

[Euler]

Filed in Northern Illinois Federal District Court on 31 May 2023. Zahareas appears not to have any group sponsorship.

Docket

I'll summarize the complaint. The core of the complaint is the IL C&PD law and extra-judicial process, but it isn't written (IMO) in a way that makes that clear, although it does ask the court to declare the C&PD law unconstitutional.

On June 21, 2021, Sotirios Tzanetopoulos engaged in road rage against Steven Zahareas on I-90. Zahareas reported the incident to ISP while it was occurring. As Tzanetopoulos exited onto IL-59, ISP passed the incident to Hoffman Estates PD. On June 23, 2021, Tzanetopoulos appeared at the home of Zahareas and verbally threatened his life, including making a motion apparently to draw a firearm. Zahareas drew his own firearm while his wife called Schaumburg police. Tzanetopoulos departed. Police Officer Jose Centeno arrived.

Centeno arrested Zahareas for aggravated assault against Tzanetopoulos. Centeno also filed a clear and present danger report against Zahareas. Other officers found Tzanetopoulos (a resident of Carpentersville) a few blocks away and arrested him for disorderly conduct. The prosecutor subsequently dropped charges against Zahareas, and the Cook County court dismissed the charges against Tzanetopoulos.

On July 28, 2022, ISP revoked Zahareas' FOID based on the C&PD report from 2021. [Recall that the Highland Park shooting was July 4, 2022.] Zahareas did not receive a letter notifying him of the revocation. On August 5, 2022, four ISP officers arrived at Zahareas' home to seize his FOID and inform him that he must dispossess himself of his firearms and complete a Firearm Disposition Record. ISP issued a second letter informing Zahareas of the revocation, which he eventually received. Zahareas relocated his firearms outside Illinois rather than allow ISP to seize them, as well, which ISP has indicated is not satisfactory.

Zahareas is suing for false arrest, deprivation of due process, violation of his US Constitutional rights (including 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments), and violation of his IL Constitutional rights correspondingly.

Edited July 20, 2025 at 07:21 AM by Euler

[ealcala31]

On 3/1/2024 at 7:35 PM, Euler said:

Filed in Northern Illinois Federal District Court on 31 May 2023. Zahareas appears not to have any group sponsorship.

Docket

I'll summarize the complaint. The core of the complaint is the IL C&PD law and extra-judicial process, but it isn't written (IMO) in a way that makes that clear, although it does ask the court to declare the C&PD law unconstitutional.

On June 21, 2021, Sotirios Tzanetopoulos engaged in road rage against Steven Zahareas on I-90. Zahareas reported the incident to ISP while it was occurring. As Tzanetopoulos exited onto IL-59, ISP passed the incident to Hoffman Estates PD. On June 23, 2023, Tzanetopoulos appeared at the home of Zahareas and verbally threatened his life, including making a motion apparently to draw a firearm. Zahareas drew his own firearm while his wife called Schaumburg police. Tzanetopoulos departed. Police Officer Jose Centeno arrived.

Centeno arrested Zahareas for aggravated assault against Tzanetopoulos. Centeno also filed a clear and present danger report against Zahareas. Other officers found Tzanetopoulos (a resident of Carpentersville) a few blocks away and arrested him for disorderly conduct. The prosecutor subsequently dropped charges against Zahareas, and the Cook County court dismissed the charges against Tzanetopoulos.

On July 28, 2022, ISP revoked Zahareas' FOID based on the C&PD report from 2021. [Recall that the Highland Park shooting was July 4, 2022.] Zahareas did not receive a letter notifying him of the revocation. On August 5, 2022, four ISP officers arrived at Zahareas' home to seize his FOID and inform him that he must dispossess himself of his firearms and complete a Firearm Disposition Record. ISP issued a second letter informing Zahareas of the revocation, which he eventually received. Zahareas relocated his firearms outside Illinois rather than allow ISP to seize them, as well, which ISP has indicated is not satisfactory.

Zahareas is suing for false arrest, deprivation of due process, violation of his US Constitutional rights (including 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments), and violation of his IL Constitutional rights correspondingly.
 

WoW. I am definitely going to follow this case...

Edited March 2, 2024 at 06:46 AM by ealcala31

[solareclipse2]

I feel like this case would be one to follow but I have lost all faith in our judicial system at this point and feel like whatever judge presides over this case is going to go "tough nuts, sucks to be you" and that's going to be that. 

[mikew]

On 3/3/2024 at 2:43 PM, solareclipse2 said:

I feel like this case would be one to follow but I have lost all faith in our judicial system at this point and feel like whatever judge presides over this case is going to go "tough nuts, sucks to be you" and that's going to be that. 

But for getting the door slammed in our face a few times we have had three great wins at the SCOTUS level and one good one in the 7th, all in the last 16 years.

Don't give up yet. 

Work towards restoring a conservative to the presidency that can appoint more correct-thinking judges.

[Euler]

On May 23, the judge scheduled an in-person motion hearing for June 19.

On May 24, the judge rescheduled the in-person motion hearing for July 17.

[Euler]

On July 17, as a result of the motion hearing, the judge ruled that Police Officer Jose Centeno motion to dismiss is denied as moot, since Centeno is preparing to file an amended motion to dismiss. Discovery is stayed. Adjudication of remaining motions is scheduled as follows:

August 16: Centeno's amended motion to dismiss due
September 6: Plainitff's' response due
September 20: Centeno's reply due
November 4: Oral argument on Raoul/Kelly/Yenchko/Leahy's motion to dismiss continued

[Euler]

On August 14, Officer Centeno asked for a joint order of protection. The scope of the protective order is the confidentiality of financial records, tax returns, personal identity information, potential criminal investigative information, and employment information discovered by either party about the other. He is also asking to present it (i.e., have a meeting with the court) on August 20.

[mab22]

I thought the police had immunity?

[Euler]

All government employees have (at least) qualified immunity, not just cops. Some have absolute immunity, which might apply to Raoul in this case. All the defendants in this case are government employees. The trial will determine if immunity applies to any/all of them.

[Talonap]

On 3/1/2024 at 7:35 PM, Euler said:

Filed in Northern Illinois Federal District Court on 31 May 2023. Zahareas appears not to have any group sponsorship.

Docket

I'll summarize the complaint. The core of the complaint is the IL C&PD law and extra-judicial process, but it isn't written (IMO) in a way that makes that clear, although it does ask the court to declare the C&PD law unconstitutional.

On June 21, 2021, Sotirios Tzanetopoulos engaged in road rage against Steven Zahareas on I-90. Zahareas reported the incident to ISP while it was occurring. As Tzanetopoulos exited onto IL-59, ISP passed the incident to Hoffman Estates PD. On June 23, 2023, Tzanetopoulos appeared at the home of Zahareas and verbally threatened his life, including making a motion apparently to draw a firearm. Zahareas drew his own firearm while his wife called Schaumburg police. Tzanetopoulos departed. Police Officer Jose Centeno arrived.

Centeno arrested Zahareas for aggravated assault against Tzanetopoulos. Centeno also filed a clear and present danger report against Zahareas. Other officers found Tzanetopoulos (a resident of Carpentersville) a few blocks away and arrested him for disorderly conduct. The prosecutor subsequently dropped charges against Zahareas, and the Cook County court dismissed the charges against Tzanetopoulos.

On July 28, 2022, ISP revoked Zahareas' FOID based on the C&PD report from 2021. [Recall that the Highland Park shooting was July 4, 2022.] Zahareas did not receive a letter notifying him of the revocation. On August 5, 2022, four ISP officers arrived at Zahareas' home to seize his FOID and inform him that he must dispossess himself of his firearms and complete a Firearm Disposition Record. ISP issued a second letter informing Zahareas of the revocation, which he eventually received. Zahareas relocated his firearms outside Illinois rather than allow ISP to seize them, as well, which ISP has indicated is not satisfactory.

Zahareas is suing for false arrest, deprivation of due process, violation of his US Constitutional rights (including 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments), and violation of his IL Constitutional rights correspondingly.
 

Sooo, what is a "C&PD"? 

[THE KING]

Clear and present danger 

[Euler]

On August 14, 2024 at 07:49 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On August 14, Officer Centeno asked for a joint order of protection. The scope of the protective order is the confidentiality of financial records, tax returns, personal identity information, potential criminal investigative information, and employment information discovered by either party about the other. He is also asking to present it (i.e., have a meeting with the court) on August 20.

On August 16, the judge signed an order of confidentiality. Also Centeno filed his amended motion to dismiss.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

How can the ISP justify that removing firearms from their jurisdiction is not satisfactory? They have no control of what you do once you cross state lines. All their infringements end at the border. 

[Euler]

On September 3, Zahareas filed a motion to extend his time to respond to Centeno's motion. The judge granted the motion and set the following schedule.

10/04: Plaintiff's response to motion due
10/18: Defendant's reply due
11/04: Hearing on the motion

[Euler]

On September 20, the judge denied the state's motion to dismiss, citing FBI v Fikre (2024).

Officer Centeno's motion to dismiss is still in play.

I considered posting about FBI v Fikre in the Back Room back when it happened. It's not a 2A case. The FBI put Fikre on the "no-fly" list (when he was overseas, no less, so he couldn't get home easily). The government never says specifically why it puts anyone on the "no-fly" list. In this case, Fikre had to sue to get off the "no-fly" list. Then the FBI took Fikre off the "no-fly" list and tried to say the case was moot. The courts didn't buy it. Voluntary cessation (stopping whatever you're doing) is no guarantee that you won't start again, so it doesn't moot the case. Fikre went to the US Supreme Court. The FBI lost 9-0.

Here, the state tried the same thing. It said it'll give Zahareas his FOID back, so the case is moot. The judge said, like Fikre, the C&PD law has no check that the state won't take it away again. Zahareas still has to prove his case at trial. Denying the state a dismissal just means that the state doesn't get a free pass.

[mab22]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:46 PM, Euler said:

On September 20, the judge denied the state's motion to dismiss, citing FBI v Fikre (2024).

Officer Centeno's motion to dismiss is still in play.

I considered posting about FBI v Fikre in the Back Room back when it happened. It's not a 2A case. The FBI put Fikre on the "no-fly" list (when he was overseas, no less, so he couldn't get home easily). The government never says specifically why it puts anyone on the "no-fly" list. In this case, Fikre had to sue to get off the "no-fly" list. Then the FBI took Fikre off the "no-fly" list and tried to say the case was moot. The courts didn't buy it. Voluntary cessation (stopping whatever you're doing) is no guarantee that you won't start again, so it doesn't moot the case. Fikre went to the US Supreme Court. The FBI lost 9-0.

Here, the state tried the same thing. It said it'll give Zahareas his FOID back, so the case is moot. The judge said, like Fikre, the C&PD law has no check that the state won't take it away again. Zahareas still has to prove his case at trial. Denying the state a dismissal just means that the state doesn't get a free pass.

It might be worth posting as I believe we have seen a few cases where the state says here’s your FOID, or Your CCL, or you’re off the naughty list and the case becomes moot or dismissed. If I read the synopsis correctly, the court can’t just drop the case and call it moot because the state gave them a permission slip. And it’s not ‘rare’ either.
Correct?
 

[Euler]

In most cases where people are suing to get their FOID and/or CCL back, that's all they want, and they're (mostly) happy if they get it/them. They're paying for the lawyer themselves. They can't afford to push a case to the US Supreme Court.

In this case, Zahareas is asking for damages (i.e., legal fees), a declaration that the C&PD law is unconstitutional, an injunction against enforcement of the C&PD law, an order to make ISP set up a meaningful appeal process (not gonna happen, not allowed by the law itself), and to get his FOID back. Giving him his FOID back and calling the case moot doesn't get him any of those other things. Of course, that's why the state offered the FOID, to forestall those other things.

BTW, the way the complaint is worded, he might only get a declaration that the C&PD law is unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement as applied to him. Zahareas might also be paying his lawyer himself. Sort of fortunately, the law is pretty bad. Any judge should be revulsed looking at it.

[Euler]

On September 4, 2024 at 07:37 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On September 3, Zahareas filed a motion to extend his time to respond to Centeno's motion. The judge granted the motion and set the following schedule.

10/04: Plaintiff's response to motion due
10/18: Defendant's reply due
11/04: Hearing on the motion

On October 2, Zahareas met the 10/04 deadline.

[Euler]

On November 4, the judge heard oral arguments regarding Officer Centeno's motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the complaint against Officer Centeno, but allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint (including against Centeno) and set the following schedule.

12/19: amended complaint due
01/16: responses to amended complaint due

[Euler]

On December 10, Zahareas asked for an extensio to file his amended complaint.

On December 12, the judge granted it. The schedule is now:

1/17: amended complaint due
2/13: responses to amended complaint due

[Euler]

On January 13, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider.

On April 4, the judge took the motion under advisement.

[crufflesmuth]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:46 PM, Euler said:

On September 20, the judge denied the state's motion to dismiss, citing FBI v Fikre (2024).

Officer Centeno's motion to dismiss is still in play.

I considered posting about FBI v Fikre in the Back Room back when it happened. It's not a 2A case. The FBI put Fikre on the "no-fly" list (when he was overseas, no less, so he couldn't get home easily). The government never says specifically why it puts anyone on the "no-fly" list. In this case, Fikre had to sue to get off the "no-fly" list. Then the FBI took Fikre off the "no-fly" list and tried to say the case was moot. The courts didn't buy it. Voluntary cessation (stopping whatever you're doing) is no guarantee that you won't start again, so it doesn't moot the case. Fikre went to the US Supreme Court. The FBI lost 9-0.

Here, the state tried the same thing. It said it'll give Zahareas his FOID back, so the case is moot. The judge said, like Fikre, the C&PD law has no check that the state won't take it away again. Zahareas still has to prove his case at trial. Denying the state a dismissal just means that the state doesn't get a free pass.

 

This case rhymes with Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling et al, No. 1:2019cv02437 - Document 83 (N.D. Ill. 2020) :: Justia, where the government argues the fifth amendment does not apply because it is not incorporated against the state; the fifth amendment itself is not clearly established; or that qualified immunity extends to the pleadings stage - one of the basic starting points within pre-trial.

 

I would say I am surprised, but as with most things with the government in Illinois you 

can see why most people keep their head down and don't fight with rationale like that

from government counsel.

 

The dismissal was probably because he (Zahareas) needed to bring a separate action against

Centeno's qualified immunity. It's very scary they can revoke FOID cards based on a police report and

not pursuant to courts and state law.

 

To be fair, it is stupid to leave once you have defended yourself. 

 

Edited April 9, 2025 at 02:53 PM by crufflesmuth

[crufflesmuth]

On 8/20/2024 at 10:57 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

How can the ISP justify that removing firearms from their jurisdiction is not satisfactory? They have no control of what you do once you cross state lines. All their infringements end at the border. 

 

When they say something is not satisfactory, it is simply another expression of extreme displeasure while not appearing upset. It is not satisfactory, because it would force an admission, they could potentially be violating someone's civil rights - has this guy talked to Pam Bondi?

Edited April 9, 2025 at 03:33 PM by crufflesmuth

[Euler]

On April 29, the judge denied the motion to reconsider and released Centeno as a defendant.

On May 1, the case was referred to the magistrate judge to supervise discovery. Parties are ordered to provide a joint status report by May 9 with a proposed discovery schedule, including expert discovery, and any progress on settlement.

I'm pretty sure declaring the C&PD law unconstitutional isn't something amenable to settlement.

[Euler]

On May 9, parties submitted an initial status report, requesting an extension to the deadline to propose a schedule for discovery, because of possible actions by ILGA this session. Parties reported that neither side would require expert discovery. Parties also declined settlement discussions.

On May 13, the judge (not the magistrate) set the following schedule based on the status report:

6/6: next status report due, including proposal for fact discovery deadline and motions to amend pleadings (including changes to C&PD law by ILGA)
7/9: initial discovery requests due

[Euler]

On June 6, parties submitted a joint status report. Defendants claim that the ILGA amendments to the C&PD law in HB850 moot this case, and they intend to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs contend that HB850 has no effect on the case, and they request another status report for July 7, in which they will report if and how much the pleadings need to be amended to accommodate HB850. Discovery should be unaffected.

On June 10, the magistrate judge scheduled another status report for July 7 as plaintiffs requested. Discovery will continue as scheduled. The magistrate reminded parties that settlement continues to be available.

... and declaring the law unconstitutional continues to be something settlement could never accomplish.

[Euler]

On July 3, parties filed a joint status report, in which plaintiff asserts that passage of HB850 (which amended the C&PD law to include review of C&PD revocations and denials by the FOID card review board) does not affect the case. Defendants assert that passage of HB850 moots the case. In addition, defendants point out that the plaintiff has had his FOID restored, which also moots the case. Defendants intend to file motions to stay discovery and to moot the case.

On July 7, the district magistrate set the following schedule for the motion to stay discovery. The motion to moot the case is a matter for the district judge.

07/21: defendants' motion to stay discovery due
08/04: plaintiff's response due
08/11: defendants' reply, if any, due

On July 18, defendants filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the motion to stay discovery.

The judge has already previously ruled that returning Zahareas' FOID to him does not moot the case. Maybe the state thinks that, if it makes the same argument several times, then maybe one of those times it'll get a different answer. As for changes introduced by HB850, the C&PD law still allows the executive branch to revoke a person's FOID unilaterally without a hearing or even notice, then the person has to ask for an executive appeal to get it back after it's been revoked. That is still not due process.

I still believe that Zahareas is funding this lawsuit himself, unless Dobra (his lawyer) is doing it pro bono. From Dobra's web site (typos included):

Charles Wm. Dobra said:→

Attorney Chuck Dobra has been practicing law since 1975. ... We focus our practice on areas where you need experienced representation: Real Estate, Estate Planning, Financial Remedies (such as Bankruptcy), and criminal maters such as felonys, misdemeanors and DUI's. ...

Attorney Charles Wm. Dobra was in law enforcement before he went to law school. He has over 33 years of military experience. Chuck was a Navy JAG, and a federal military magistrate. ...

Edited July 20, 2025 at 07:49 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On July 24, the magistrate granted an extension for the motion to stay discovery. Motions for summary judgment must be directed to the judge. The schedule is now:

08/01: defendants' motion to stay discovery due
08/15: plaintiff's response due
08/22: defendants' reply, if any, due

The magistrate will set the date for the next status report after the court has received the motion to stay discovery.

[Euler]

On August 1, the defendants filed their motion to stay discovery.

[Euler]

On August 11, Zahareas filed a brief in opposition to staying discovery.

On August 15, the state filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.