UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________

August Term 2020

No. 20-0086-cv ______________

VICTOR JUZUMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee,

“JOHN DOES 1-5” Defendants. ______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ______________

ARGUED: DECEMBER 10, 2020 DECIDED: MAY 12, 2022

Before: POOLER, WESLEY, CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Victor Juzumas sued Nassau County (the “County”) and five “John Doe” law enforcement officers (the County and the individuals together, “Defendants”) for alleged constitutional violations arising from their enforcement of New York Penal Law § 400.00(11)(c). Juzumas alleges that the County’s policy interpreting and applying § 400.00(11)(c) is broader than the law itself, and unconstitutional as it was applied to him. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J.) disagreed, finding that the County acted to enforce a mandatory provision of state law and as a result was not a proper defendant under Vives v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2008). It granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Juzumas’s First, Second, and Fourth Amendment claims, related Monell claims, and Section 1983 conspiracy claim. Juzumas appeals the district court’s order. We AFFIRM the order of the district court in part, except to the extent that it failed to reach an adequate determination on the County’s longarms possession policy. We VACATE and REMAND in part for the district court to address that aspect of Juzumas’s Second Amendment and Monell claims.

______________

AMY L. BELLANTONI, The Bellantoni Law Firm, PLLC, Scarsdale, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

JARED A. KASSCHAU, Nassau County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag, Deputy County Attorney, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.

______________

2 PER CURIAM:

Victor Juzumas sued Nassau County (the “County”) and five “John Doe” law enforcement officers (the County and the individuals together, “Defendants”) for alleged constitutional violations arising from their enforcement of New York Penal Law § 400.00(11)(c). Juzumas alleges that the County’s policy interpreting § 400.00(11)(c) is broader than the law itself, and unconstitutional as it was applied to him. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J.) disagreed, finding that the County acted in large part to enforce a mandatory provision of state law and was not a proper defendant under Vives v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2008). Juzumas v. Nassau Cty., 417 F. Supp. 3d 178 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). It granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Juzumas’s First, Second, and Fourth Amendment claims, related Monell claims, and Section 1983 conspiracy claim. We affirm the order of the district court in part,