Meester v. Dept. of Justice

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (filing no. 8 ) is granted in part. Plaintiff is permitted to add William L. Bowers, Director of Industry Operation, Kansas City Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives a s a Defendant in this matter. The remainder of Plaintiffs Motion to Amend is denied. The Clerk of the court is directed to file the Proposed Amended Complaint (filing no. 8 , attach. 1) as a separate pleading. The Clerk of the court is also dire cted to update the docket sheet in this matter to add William L. Bowers, Director of Industry Operation, Kansas City Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as a Defendant in this matter. The Clerk of the court shall not add any other Defendant. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 6 ) is denied as moot. Defendants shall file their answers or other responsive pleadings no later than September 11, 2012. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DUANE MEESTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPT. OF JUSTICE, Kansas City
Div of BATF&E,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV86

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No.
6.) Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. (Filing No. 8.)
In his Motion to Amend Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add three Defendants to
this matter. (Filing No. 8.) In particular, Plaintiff seeks to add William L. Bowers
(“Bowers”), Director of Industry Operation, Kansas City Division of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“BATF&E”), Eric Holder (“Holder”),
United States Attorney General, and Deborah R. Gilg (“Gilg”), United States
Attorney for the District of Nebraska. (Id.) Defendant opposes the Motion to Amend
in part, stating that Plaintiff’s Complaint relates entirely to its refusal to renew
Plaintiff’s federal firearms license. (Filing No. 10 at CM/ECF p. 3.) Thus, in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.73, and 27 C.F.R. § 478.74,
and because Bowers is the only person having any involvement in the decision to
deny Plaintiff the requested renewal of his federal firearm license, Holder and Gilg
are not proper parties to this matter. (Id.) Defendant does not object to the addition
of Bowers as a Defendant in this matter. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 3.)
After careful review of the record, the court agrees that Bowers is an
appropriate Defendant, but that Holder and Gilg are not. Thus, Plaintiff is permitted
to amend his Complaint to add Bowers as a Defendant and the Clerk of the court will

be directed to update the docket sheet accordingly.
Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the court’s records show that
Defendant now states its Motion to Dismiss is moot because Plaintiff has completed
proper service of process. (Filing No. 11 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Defendant requests that
the court deny its Motion to Dismiss and permit it, along with the newly-added
Bowers, to respond to the Amended Complaint by filing an answer or other
responsive pleading. For good cause shown, the court will deny the Motion to
Dismiss.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (filing no. 8) is granted in part. Plaintiff is
permitted to add William L. Bowers, Director of Industry Operation, Kansas City
Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as a Defendant
in this matter. The remainder of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is denied.
2.
The Clerk of the court is directed to file the Proposed Amended
Complaint (filing no. 8, attach. 1) as a separate pleading. The Clerk of the court is
also directed to update the docket sheet in this matter to add “William L. Bowers,
Director of Industry Operation, Kansas City Division of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives” as a Defendant in this matter. The Clerk of the
court shall not add any other Defendant.
3.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 6) is denied as moot.

4.
Defendants shall file their answers or other responsive pleadings no later
than September 11, 2012.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2012.
2

BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3