Knight v. New York City
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Knight v. New York City, Judge Caproni granted the motion to dismiss insofar as it was not withdrawn, denied summary judgment without prejudice, and allowed limited amendment.
Cavalier D. Knight, whose remaining claims were dismissed subject to a limited opportunity to amend, and the City of New York and Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell, whose dismissal motion was granted to the extent it was not withdrawn.
What happened
In Knight v. New York City, Cavalier D. Knight challenged the denial of his application for a concealed handgun license and the City’s rules for licensing gun dealers. After the Supreme Court ruled that New York’s “proper cause” requirement was unconstitutional, the police department withdrew its denial and agreed to review Knight’s application without that requirement.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the license dispute no longer presented a live issue and that Knight lacked standing to challenge the gun-dealer rules because he had never applied for that type of license. They later withdrew part of that motion. A magistrate judge recommended granting the remaining portion and allowing Knight to amend his complaint to challenge the gun-dealer licensing scheme and the rule limiting an individual to one gun purchase every ninety days.
Judge Caproni adopted that recommendation in full because neither side objected and the court found no clear error. She granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent it was not withdrawn, denied Knight’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice, and allowed him to file a second amended complaint limited to the specified challenges.
The detailed version
- Knight v. New York City · No. 1:22-cv-03215
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 24, 2023
Background
Cavalier D. Knight sued the City of New York and New York City Police Department Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell. His amended complaint challenged two matters: the denial of his application for a “Carry Business” handgun license and the City’s regulations governing gun-dealer licensing. The opinion defines a “Carry Business” license as an unrestricted license allowing a person to carry a handgun concealed on the person.
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court held that New York City’s requirement that handgun-license applicants show “proper cause” was unconstitutional. On August 17, 2022, the New York City Police Department vacated its earlier denial of Knight’s application and informed him that the application could be reviewed without evaluating proper cause.
Motions and recommendation
Knight moved for summary judgment. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they argued the federal court lacked authority to decide the claims. They argued that vacating the license denial removed the live controversy and that Knight lacked standing—the required connection to a dispute—because he had never applied for a gun-dealer license.
After a conference, the defendants withdrew the portion of their motion seeking dismissal of Knight’s facial challenge to the gun-dealer licensing rule in 38 R.C.N.Y. § 4-03(t)(3). A facial challenge contests a rule generally, rather than only its application to the plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Figueredo then recommended granting the remaining portion of the dismissal motion and allowing Knight to file a second amended complaint limited to challenges to the gun-dealer licensing scheme and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-302.1(b), which limits an individual’s gun purchases to one every ninety days.
District court ruling
Neither party objected to the amended report and recommendation. Judge Caproni therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. She adopted it in full and ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted to the extent it had not been withdrawn.
The court also ordered that Knight could file a second amended complaint by February 7, 2023, raising only the permitted challenges. Because the arguments in Knight’s summary-judgment motion had been addressed in the briefing on the dismissal motion and resolved in the amended recommendation, the court denied that motion without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motions at Dkts. 23, 27, and 29. The court further stated that the parties’ failure to object precluded appellate review of the decision.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.