Court Opinion

ID: 9931290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:00:57.527998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:17.258974
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

                                       No. 22-3403
                                       ___________

                                  BRIANNA MURPHY,

                                                          Appellant

                                             v.

                 LT. LISA KING, in her personal and official capacities;
                   SGT. SABRINA McCOY, in her personal capacity
                             ________________
                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                                (D.C. No. 2-20-cv-02230)
                     District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
                                         ________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                on November 3, 2023

                 Before: JORDAN, ROTH, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: February 8, 2024)

                                        OPINION*

       *
        This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge

       Brianna Murphy, who had a valid license to carry a firearm, non-fatally shot her

neighbor in self-defense outside of her home. Her license to carry was subsequently

revoked, but Murphy did not receive notice of the revocation. She thus continued to

carry a firearm and only became aware of the revocation after she was pulled over for a

traffic violation and arrested for carrying a firearm without a license. She was later

released, the charges against her were withdrawn, and her gun license was reinstated.

       Murphy filed a lawsuit claiming, as relevant here, that the Gun Permit Unit of the

Philadelphia Police Department, supervised by Police Lieutenant Lisa King, has an

unconstitutional policy or custom of failing to make reasonable attempts to notify citizens

of revocations of their licenses to carry, resulting in due process violations. Murphy

appeals the District Court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of King and

subsequently denying reconsideration.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm both

orders of the District Court.

                                                 I.

       As noted, Murphy had a license to carry a firearm and shot her neighbor in self-

defense outside of her home on October 8, 2018. While initially arrested and deprived of

her firearm, she was not charged with a crime and her firearm was returned to her.

       1
         There is some confusion in Murphy’s briefing as to what order(s) or judgment
she is appealing. To clarify: she appeals immediately from the District Court’s order of
November 17, 2022, denying her reconsideration motion and also appeals the object of
that reconsideration motion, namely the Court’s order of September 22, 2022, granting
King’s summary judgment motion.
                                             2
Nonetheless, on October 9, 2018, the City of Philadelphia Police Department’s Gun

Permit Unit (“GPU”) revoked Murphy’s gun license for her conduct the previous day.

Lieutenant King has been the supervising officer of the GPU since 2003.

       The GPU sent notice of the revocation by certified mail, but it was returned as

unclaimed because it was sent to an address where Murphy no longer resided. As

discussed in greater detail below, while King provides evidence supporting that the GPU

also sent notice of the revocation by regular mail, Murphy contends that notice was only

sent by certified mail. At any rate, no other letter (i.e., a regular mail letter) was returned

to the GPU as being undelivered. The GPU did not attempt to notify Murphy of the

revocation by any further means.

       Unaware her gun license had been revoked, Murphy continued to carry a firearm.

When she was subsequently pulled over in January 2020 during a traffic stop, police

officers of Radnor Township, Pennsylvania arrested her for carrying a firearm without a

license. She was released on unsecured bond later that day, and the charges were

ultimately withdrawn. In March 2021, Murphy’s license to carry was reinstated.

       Murphy filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, bringing multiple claims alleging due

process violations against King in her individual and official capacities.2 The District

Court dismissed most of the claims, leaving only a single claim against King in her

official capacity, alleging that she permitted a policy or custom at the GPU whereby it

       2
        Murphy also brought a due process claim against Sabrina McCoy, the officer in
charge of sending out license-revocation notices, in her individual capacity. That claim is
not before us, having been previously dismissed by the District Court.
                                               3
fails to make reasonable attempts to notify citizens of revocations of gun licenses in

violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

       The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. King’s motion contained a

declaration from Staff Inspector Francis Healy, an advisor to the Police Commissioner,

with new evidence indicating that the GPU sent revocation letters both by certified mail

and regular mail. Murphy’s counsel objected to this late-appearing evidence. In light of

this development, the District Court denied both motions for summary judgment without

prejudice and reopened discovery, allowing the parties to depose Healy as well as King.

Murphy’s counsel deposed both.

       In these depositions, both Healy and King made statements supporting that the

GPU uses a two-letter revocation notice procedure and that the procedure was in place at

the time Murphy’s notice was sent out. Healy stated that, around 2014, he instructed the

GPU to start sending revocation notices by both certified and regular mail. King testified

that the GPU subsequently implemented the two-letter procedure and, as a result, Murphy

would have received two notification letters.

       After the new round of discovery, the parties filed renewed summary judgment

motions. The District Court denied Murphy’s motion and granted King’s. Murphy

moved for reconsideration, but the District Court denied it. She timely appealed.3

       3
          The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the orders granting summary judgment in
favor of King and denying Murphy’s motion for reconsideration. We review de novo
orders granting summary judgment. Matheis v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 936 F.3d 171, 176 (3d
Cir. 2019). We apply the same test the District Court would use, meaning we review the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and grant summary judgment if the
                                             4
                                                  II.

       On appeal, Murphy broadly argues that the GPU’s notice process is

constitutionally insufficient under Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). She appears to

make two separate arguments with respect to this contention: (1) there is a genuine

dispute of material fact whether the GPU has a practice of sending two revocation letters,

one by certified mail and one by regular mail; and (2) even if it has a practice of sending

two revocation letters, that process is nonetheless insufficient to satisfy the due process

principles set out in Jones v. Flowers. As noted below, neither argument persuades us.

       Murphy’s claim rests on a theory of municipal liability under Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). To establish municipal liability, she

must demonstrate that a local government’s “policy or custom” caused her injury. Est. of

Roman v. City of Newark, 914 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at

694). Murphy alleges that King permitted the GPU to “enforce a pattern and custom of

failing to make any reasonable attempts to notify citizens of [license-to-carry]

revocations after revocation letters are returned as undeliverable, in light of the principles

announced [in] Jones v. Flowers . . . in violation of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.” App. 15.

movant shows “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and it “is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We review a denied motion for
reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999).

                                              5
       In Jones, the United States Supreme Court examined the issue of whether the

government must take additional, reasonable steps to provide notice before taking

property from someone to whom a notice of a tax sale is mailed but is returned as

undelivered. Jones, 547 U.S. at 223. The Court concluded that when a mailed notice of a

tax sale is returned as unclaimed, the government must take additional, reasonable steps

to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling the property “if it is

practicable to do so.” Id. at 225.

       Relying on this broader principle, Murphy argues that the GPU’s policy or custom

regarding revocation letters is constitutionally insufficient because if a revocation letter is

returned as being undelivered, no additional attempt is made to communicate with the

intended recipient. While Murphy’s briefing largely assumes that the GPU sends only

one notice letter (and, in her view, fails to make any attempt to notify beyond sending the

one certified letter), she appears also to argue that, even if the GPU sends two letters (one

via certified and one via regular mail), that would still be insufficient for due process

because no further attempt, beyond the two letters, is made to notify the intended

recipient. King does not dispute that no further attempt is made to notify someone of her

license revocation if the mail is returned as undelivered.

       Regarding whether the GPU sends out one or two notice letters to someone whose

license to carry has been revoked, the District Court concluded that there was “no

evidence” disputing Healy and King’s testimony that the GPU had a practice of sending

out two notice-of-revocation letters. App. 26. In doing so, the Court disregarded

“Murphy’s speculation, selective use of the deposition testimony and declarations, and

                                               6
inflammatory allegations” regarding the late-discovered evidence supporting that the

two-letter policy was in place at the time of Murphy’s revocation. App. 27. In sum, it

concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Healy failed to recommend the two-

letter policy to King in 2014 and that King did not thereafter implement such a policy.

       On whether the two-letter notification process satisfies the due process principles

of Jones, the District Court concluded that the policy of sending revocation letters both

by certified and regular mail meets the dictates of due process. Specifically, it ruled that

such a policy “has the same practical effect as resending the letter by regular mail in the

event the certified letter is returned,” which, it noted, the U.S. Supreme Court determined

would meet the demands of due process in Jones. App. 29; see Jones, 547 U.S. at 234

(stating that, where a certified letter was returned as being unclaimed, one additional,

reasonable step to attempt to notify the intended recipient would be to “resend the notice

by regular mail”).

       On appeal, Murphy attempts to create a genuine dispute of material fact on

whether the GPU has a policy of sending two revocation-notice letters. But she fails to

demonstrate any genuine dispute because none of the evidence she relies on contradicts

Healy and King’s testimony supporting that the GPU has had a policy of sending two

letters—one by certified mail and one by regular mail—since before Murphy’s

revocation. Instead, her briefing takes various statements out of context to suggest that

only one letter was sent. As before the District Court, Murphy has pointed to no evidence

genuinely disputing that the GPU implemented a two-letter policy before her revocation.

                                              7
       Murphy also appears to argue on appeal that, even if the GPU has implemented a

two-letter policy, it nonetheless fails to comply with the due process principles in Jones.

But Murphy has forfeited this issue because she failed to raise it before the District Court

in her summary judgment briefing, which was similarly premised on the contention that

the GPU sends only a single revocation-notice letter.4 Overlooking that the argument

was not previously raised, the District Court nonetheless concluded that, for the reasons

stated in its opinion granting summary judgment in favor of King, Murphy’s

“interpretation of Jones is incorrect” and the GPU’s two-letter process is sufficient under

that holding. Supp. App. 134-35.

       Even if Murphy had not forfeited the issue, she fails to make any persuasive legal

argument as to why the GPU’s policy of sending two notification letters, one by certified

mail and one by regular mail, does not satisfy the due process principles of Jones to the

extent they are applicable here. In fact, her briefing does not include any specific,

developed argument on why the District Court’s conclusion that the due process

principles of Jones are satisfied was legally incorrect.5 Especially in the absence of such

argument, we find the District Court’s reasoning persuasive.

       4
         While Murphy did raise this argument in her motion for reconsideration, the
District Court noted that she had failed to do so in her summary judgment motion
(despite being able to do so at that time), for which reason the argument was improperly
raised on a motion for reconsideration.
       5
        Indeed, large portions of Murphy’s opening—and only—brief appear to have
been simply copied from her summary judgment briefing in the District Court, which
may explain why it fails to grapple squarely with the issues presented on appeal. See
Conboy v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., 992 F.3d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 2021) (stating that copying
                                             8
      For these reasons, the Court properly granted summary judgment for King and

denied Murphy’s motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

and pasting summary judgment briefing into an appellate brief with minor changes does
not constitute “proper appellate advocacy”).

                                          9