GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:
This case arose after the County of Nassau, the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, and various officers (collectively, the "Defendants") refused to return Plaintiff Christine Panzella's longarms
For the reasons set forth below, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED to the extent that it grants Panzella an injunction. The appeal is DISMISSED in all other respects.
Because this case involves the interplay between New York Family Court orders of protection and various state and federal laws, we first set forth an overview of the relevant legal framework.
A. Article 8 of the New York Family Court Act
Under Article 8 of the New York Family Court Act, an individual may file a petition in the Family Court to obtain an order of protection against a family member. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 812, 821-22. The Family Court may then, upon a showing of "good cause[,] ... issue a temporary order of protection" prohibiting the respondent from engaging in various types of conduct. Id. § 828.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
If the Family Court issues the order ex parte, the Court must hold a hearing regarding the surrender within fourteen days of the date the order was issued. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 842-a(7).
"Although Section 842-a authorizes the Family Court to order the confiscation of... firearms, this provision does not authorize it to order their subsequent return."
The burden of deciding whether to return the firearms is thus principally put on the Supreme Court, "which does not have... comparable knowledge or background on cases litigated in the Family Court." Id. The determination, moreover, is left "to a judge who is not familiar with the history of the family, the parties, and any alleged violence that may have transpired resulting in the issuance of the order of protection
B. Factual Background
On June 22, 2012, Panzella's ex-husband filed a petition under Article 8 in the New York Family Court. That same day, a Court Attorney Referee in the Family Court issued a temporary order of protection against Panzella ("the Temporary Order"), to remain in effect until December 21, 2012. The Temporary Order was issued ex parte, and required that Panzella:
App. at 50. There is no dispute that a hearing was not held in connection with the issuance of the Temporary Order.
The Temporary Order contained the federal warning language, informing Panzella that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) and other federal laws, "[i]t is a federal crime to ... buy, possess or transfer a [firearm] while this Order remains in effect." App. at 51. We note, however, that because the Temporary Order was issued ex parte, § 922(g) would not apply to Panzella because § 922(g) makes criminal the possession of a firearm only when an order of protection has been "issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(A) (emphasis added). The Family Court also did not include language requiring Panzella to surrender her firearms pursuant to § 842-a, or any other law.
On June 27, 2012, four Deputy Sheriffs from the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, under the supervision of Sheriff Michael Sposato and Deputy Sheriff Robert Mastropieri, served the Temporary Order on Panzella, and, upon learning that she had firearms and longarms in her home, confiscated them.
On November 27, 2012, after a hearing at which Panzella appeared, the Family Court extended the Temporary Order to January 22, 2013. Subsequently, on March 6, 2013, her ex-husband withdrew his petition. The Court, then, dismissed the entire protection proceeding.
On several occasions thereafter, Panzella requested the return of her longarms. Defendants have thus far denied her requests, and have informed her that because her longarms were seized in connection with a lawful order under Article 8 of the New York State Family Court Act, the County's "Retention Policy," App. at 947, prevents it from returning the longarms "until the Sheriff's Department is presented with an order directing the return of [the longarms] from a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. at 687.
C. Procedural History
On October 11, 2013, Panzella filed a "Class Action Complaint"
On November 27, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Panzella's suit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim. On December 6, 2013, the district court informed the parties that it intended to convert the Defendants' motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. On September 10, 2014, the district court directed Panzella to file a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, which she did, on January 19, 2015. The district court issued a memorandum and order on Panzella's and the Defendants' motions for summary judgment on August 26, 2015.
The court first dismissed, with prejudice, Panzella's claims against the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, holding that "[a]s an administrative arm of Nassau County, the ... Department is not a suable entity." Panzella v. Cty. of Nassau, No. 13-CV-5640 (JMA)(SIL), 2015 WL 5607750, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2015).
The court then granted Panzella's motion for summary judgment as to her Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the County. The court relied on Razzano, recognizing that although that case "addressed factually distinct circumstances,"
The district court concluded that, after the Temporary Order expired, Panzella should have been afforded a hearing under the following conditions, as set forth in Razzano:
Id.; accord Razzano, 765 F.Supp.2d at 191.
Because no such hearing had been held, the district court granted Panzella's motion for summary judgment and ordered the County to hold a due process hearing, consistent with Razzano, within thirty days of the court's decision. Panzella, 2015 WL 5607750, at *7.
The district court then granted the individual Defendants qualified immunity, granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Panzella's Second Amendment claim, denied Panzella's request for punitive damages, and denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on Panzella's state law claims as "premature until the due process hearing ordered by the Court has been held." Id. at *12.
A. Appellate Jurisdiction
Defendants argue that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order "rejected the defense of immunity for the defendants as to the one claim not dismissed." Appellants-Cross-Appellees' Opening Br. at 1. By using the phrase "the one claim not dismissed," the Defendants appear to refer to Panzella's due process claim on which the district court granted relief. But the district court granted injunctive relief as to this claim, and "[q]ualified immunity shields ... defendants only from claims for monetary damages and does not bar actions for declaratory or injunctive relief." Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35, 48 (2d Cir. 1999). Because the district court did not deny qualified immunity as to Panzella's damage claims, Defendants' asserted ground for appellate jurisdiction is not present.
Panzella argues that we have jurisdiction to review the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it was a final order. "A decision is ordinarily considered final and appealable under § 1291 only if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
We do, however, have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 to review the district court's grant of injunctive relief. And there may be an argument that because the injunctive order is appealable under § 1292, we also "have discretion under the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's related order" concerning the other claims in this case. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1995). But the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction is applied narrowly — see Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC, 813 F.3d 98, 117 (2d Cir. 2016) — and only (a) to "matters inextricably bound up with" the issue over which we have jurisdiction, Lamar Advert. of Penn, LLC v. Town of Orchard Park, 356 F.3d 365, 371 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), or (b) where "review of [another] decision [is] necessary to ensure meaningful review of the" matter over which the court has jurisdiction, Swint v. Chambers Cty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 51, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995). None of the other claims in this case meet this standard. We therefore confine our review to the district court's injunctive relief, and dismiss the remainder of this appeal and the individual Defendants' appeal for want of jurisdiction.
B. Injunctive Relief: Due Process Hearing
"We review the district court's ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment de novo, in each case construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 613 F.3d 76, 83 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York, 594 F.3d 94, 103 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that the scope of review does not change in the context of cross-motions for summary judgment).
The facts relevant to this appeal are largely undisputed. Both parties agree that Defendants confiscated Panzella's longarms, and that the County, through the Sheriff's Department, has a policy of doing so even when an order of protection issued by the Family Court does not explicitly order the Defendants to confiscate firearms pursuant to § 842-a. The parties also agree that Defendants have a policy of retaining confiscated firearms, even after an order of protection expires or is dismissed, until the Sheriff's Department is presented with an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing the return of the longarms. And all agree that the Family Court believes it cannot issue such an order in circumstances like those before us.
Panzella claims that the County's Retention Policy violates her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because the County refused to hold a hearing regarding the return of her longarms after the order of protection against her was dismissed. The County, however, argues that the district court erred in requiring it to hold such a hearing. The County further argues that state law leaves it powerless to return firearms after they have been seized pursuant to an order from the Family
The County also claims that Panzella could bring an Article 78 Petition in the New York Supreme Court to obtain an order directing the return of her longarms. This, according to the County, provides adequate process under § 1983.
The Fourteenth Amendment commands that "No State shall ... deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; accord Nnebe v. Davis, 644 F.3d 147, 158 (2d. Cir. 2011). "In a § 1983 suit brought to enforce procedural due process rights, a court must determine [A] whether a property interest is implicated, and, if it is, [B] what process is due before the plaintiff may be deprived of that interest." Nnebe, 644 F.3d at 158. The appropriate process depends on the balancing of three factors: (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the official action;" (2) "the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used;" and (3) "the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); accord Rivera-Powell v. Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458, 466 (2d Cir. 2006).
As to the first of these "Mathews factors," there is no dispute that Panzella has a property interest in her longarms and that the County's retention of her longarms affected that interest.
As to the second factor, although Panzella could initiate an Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, such a proceeding would be "likely to take a substantial amount of time." Razzano, 765 F.Supp.2d at 188. Furthermore, Article 78 proceedings place the burden on the person whose property was taken, requiring that person to "give up not only time, but also money to initiate a lawsuit and [usually] retain an attorney." Id.; cf. Alexandre v. Cortes, 140 F.3d 406, 409 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998) ("It seems to me a shocking thing that our police can seize a citizen's property and then when he seeks to get it back challenge him to prove his title to the satisfaction of a jury." (citation omitted)). In light of the burdens an Article 78 proceeding places on the person whose longarms have been taken, we conclude there is a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of that person's interests in her longarms.
Nor has the County provided any evidence that the type of hearing proposed by Panzella — a prompt post-deprivation hearing consistent with the conditions set forth in Razzano, id. at 191, — would be overly burdensome. Indeed, as the district court noted, and as the County has not disputed, the County's police department routinely holds this kind of hearing, given that it is required to do so by the order in Razzano, and given the County's more general role in granting pistol licenses. There is no clear reason why the police department could not readily perform the same service in cases such as the one at bar.
We conclude that Panzella's proposed alternative to an Article 78 proceeding — a prompt, post-deprivation hearing consistent with the conditions set forth in Razzano, id. at 191, — would prevent the unjustified deprivation of a person's property interest, and would not be unduly burdensome or costly to the government. Such a hearing would provide Panzella with a timely and inexpensive forum to challenge the County's retention of her longarms and would avoid placing on Panzella the burdens that inhere in an Article 78 proceeding.
We therefore hold, consistent with the district court's decision in the instant case, and the decision in Razzano, that persons in Panzella's situation are entitled to a prompt post-deprivation hearing under the four conditions set forth by the district court in this case and in Razzano. See Panzella, 2015 WL 5607750, at *7; Razzano, 765 F.Supp.2d at 191.
For the reasons set forth above, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED to the extent it grants Panzella