STEPHENS v. JEREJIAN et al
Filing
36
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 1/17/2023. (krg, )
Case 2:14-cv-06688-WJM-MF Document 36 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 303
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARC A. STEPHENS,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 2:14-CV-06688 (WJM)
V.
THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. JEREJIAN,
OPINION
in his official capacity as Judge of the Superior
Court of Bergen County; CHIEF ARTHUR
O'KEEFE, in his individual and official capacity
as Chief of the Englewood, New Jersey Police
Department; JOHN JAY HOFFMAN in his
official capacity as the Attorney General of New
Jersey,
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Marc A. Stephens ("Plaintiff) brings this "motion to reopen" pro se against
the Honorable Edward A. Jerejian, in his official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of
Bergen County ( Jerejian"), Chief Arthur O'Keefe, in his individual and official capacity as
Chief of the Englewood Police Department ("O'Keefe"), and John Jay Hoffman, in his official
capacity as the Attorney General of New Jersey ("Hoffinan"). For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this matter, as discussed in the Court's
previous Opinions on August 4, 2015 and November 13, 2015, and will only discuss the
relevant facts below. Plaintiff filed this instant motion on August 9^ 2022, asking the Court to
reopen this matter based on an intervening change in controlling law. Specifically, Plaintiff
argues that the United States Supreme Court's recent opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Assoc. Inc. v. Brnen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) merits reopening this matter. Plaintiff goes on to
argue that: (1) New Jersey's justifiable need requirement for a firearm carry permit is
unconstitutional; (2) the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and guaranteed right;
(3) states cannot interfere with the right of citizens to keep and bear arms; (4) states cannot
enact gun control laws; (5) states cannot ban arms, firearms, ammunition, or interfere with
citizens' right to keep and bear arms of any description due to public safety concerns; (6)
Case 2:14-cv-06688-WJM-MF Document 36 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 304
people do not need to obtain a permit, license, identification cards, or to register firearms in
order to exercise guaranteed and fundamental constitutional rights; (7) the individual
fundamental and inalienable right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond
the home; (8) Drake v. Filko^ 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) was incorrectly reviewed under
intermediate scrutiny; and (9) NJ firearm permit and licensing laws applied only to slaves and
cannot survive strict scrutiny. Pl. Mot. at 3-19. Plaintiff does not state which Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure he Is basing his motion on, but the Court will construe it as a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) since reconsideration is the appropriate means of bringing
to the court's attention manifest errors of fact or law. See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d
906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).
IL LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCT") allows a party to move a
district court to reconsider its judgment. A motion for reconsideration may be granted only if:
(1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence has become
available since the court granted the subject motion; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max fs Seafood Cafe by Lozi-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
ffl. DISCUSSION
The Court has the discretion to decide the merits of Plaintiff s motion. Local Civil Rule
7.1(i) explicitly requires motions for reconsideration be filed no later than fourteen days after
the decision at issue. Plaintiff filed the present motion nearly 7 years after this Court denied
his second motion for reconsideration. However, courts in this district have relaxed this
requirement when the motion is based on an intervening change in law. See Doe v. Princeton
Univ., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237293, at *5 (Dec. 17, 2020); Elec. Mobility Corp. v. Bourns
Sensors/Controls, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 2d 394, 401 (D.N.J. 2000).
The crux of Plaintiffs argument is that an intervening change in controlling law,
specifically New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. Inc. v. Bmen, (2022), warrants reopening
and reconsidering this Court's previous decision dismissing Plaintiffs complaint. 142 S. Ct.
2111 (2022). In Brzien, the Court ruled that "an individual's right to cany a handgun for selfdefense outside the home is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. 142 S. Ct.
at 2112. Bruen further found that New York State's requirement that applicants who sought
unrestricted licenses to carry a concealed pistol on their person "demonstrate[ ] a special need
for self-defense" violated the Constitution. M However, Plaintiffs original complaint
centered around being denied a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card as well as
permits to purchase handguns in New Jersey. Plaintiff appealed to the New Jersey Superior
Court where the Honorable Edward Jerejian upheld the denial of Plaintiff s applications. In
the underlying action, the relief Plaintiff seeks is to have this Court require the issuance of
permits to purchase firearms as denied by Judge Jerejian, however, this demand runs afoul
with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Case 2:14-cv-06688-WJM-MF Document 36 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 305
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Scmdi Basic Inchis. Corp., the Supreme Court clarified that
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies specifically to "cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments."
544 US. 280,284 (2005). Here, Plaintiff complains that his rights were violated by the denial
of his permits to purchase firearms. After he lost twice in state court. Plaintiff sought federal
court review of the underlying state action. Like before, this matter falls squarely within
Rooker-Feldman and is therefore barred. Furthermore, Bruen's limited holding regarding
carrying a firearm outside of the home has no bearing on Plaintiffs initial denial of a firearm
permit. The proper course is for Plaintiff to re-apply for the permits so that he can demonstrate
his fitness to purchase the firearms. The remainder of Plaintiff s arguments similarly fail to
meet the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Therefore, Plaintiffs
motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs motion is DENIEp WITH^rtEJUDICE.
An appropriate Order shall follow.
^^ILLfA^fMARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: January 17, 2023
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?