Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page1 of 8

19-2152
United States Court Of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
________________________________________

JONATHAN CORBETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CITY OF NEW YORK,

THOMAS M. PRASSO,
Defendant-Appellees

________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York (Hon. Katherine Polk Failla)

________________________________________

REPLY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

________________________________________

JONATHAN CORBETT, ESQ.

958 N. Western Ave. #765
Hollywood, CA 90029
Phone/FAX: (310) 684-3870
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com
Attorney Proceeding Pro Se
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page2 of 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
I. Corbett’s State Court Challenge Regarding the Gun License Was Exclusively Made
Under Article 78, and Civil Rights Act Damages Were Unavailable Regardless ...................... 3
II. Issue Preclusion Is Not Before the Court ............................................................................. 4
III. Corbett Rests His Merits Argument On His Opening Brief............................................. 5
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 6
RULE 32(a)(7) CERTIFICATE ..................................................................................................... 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

No authorities cited.

-2-
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page3 of 8

INTRODUCTION

Defendant-Appellees seek to raise claim and issue preclusion arguments that

are not a part of this appeal, in addition to addressing the actual merits of the

appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should not consider claim or issue

preclusion at this time and as to the merits, Plaintiff-Appellant rests on his opening

briefs and his requested oral arguments.

ARGUMENT

I. Corbett’s State Court Challenge Regarding the Gun License Was

Exclusively Made Under Article 78, and Civil Rights Act Damages Were

Unavailable Regardless

Defendant-Appellees use the word “hybrid” to refer to the state court

proceedings 19 times in their brief. A “hybrid” pleading in this instance means

that in addition to Corbett’s challenge to his gun license denial under Article 78, he

also challenged something else via a non-Article 78 procedure. In this case, the

“something else” was the denial of a public records request. Brief of Defendant-

Appellees, p. 171.

1 All page numbers refer to those generated by the CM/ECF system.

-3-
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page4 of 8

The non-Article 78 portion of Corbett’s challenge was not a part of the same

transaction or occurrence as the denial of his gun license application, and thus the

non-hybrid portion has no effect on the application of claim preclusion. The gun

license issue was heard only under Article 78, and under Article 78, Corbett was

entitled to no monetary relief. Claim preclusion therefore does not apply.

Arguendo, even if Corbett had brought his gun license challenge as a non-

Article 78 lawsuit in New York courts, it is unclear if the same remedies could be

obtained as he could in federal court under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Civil Rights Act creates personal monetary liability for the government

official violating the rights of a citizen, and it is unclear whether any state court

proceeding could do the same in this circumstance. The issue would be properly

considered upon remand, as the court below’s holding that Corbett could overcome

claim preclusion with an amended complaint was not appealed by Defendant-

Appellees and is not properly before the Court.

II. Issue Preclusion Is Not Before the Court

Defendant-Appellees argue that even if claim preclusion does not apply,

issue preclusion does. However, this argument was not considered by the court

-4-
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page5 of 8

below at all and is thus not even arguably a part of this appeal. If Defendant-

Appellees wish to make this argument, they should do so upon remand.

III. Corbett Rests His Merits Argument On His Opening Brief

The merits of Plaintiff-Appellant’s gun license challenge were thoroughly

addressed in his opening brief, and all arguments in Defendant-Appellee’s

opposition were already addressed therein.

Plaintiff-Appellant will seek to clarify any further issues, and the application

of the soon-to-be-published opinion of the United States Supreme Court in New

York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, via oral

arguments.

-5-
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page6 of 8

CONCLUSION

The Court should reverse the decision of the court below and remand for

further proceedings.

Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

February 5th, 2020

______________________________
Jonathan Corbett
Plaintiff-Appellant
Attorney proceeding Pro Se
958 N. Western Ave., Suite 765
Hollywood, CA 90029
Phone/FAX: (310) 684-3870
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com

-6-
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page7 of 8

RULE 32(a)(7) CERTIFICATE

This brief complies with Fed. R. App. P. Rule 32(a)(7) because it contains

approximately 800 words.

Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

February 5th, 2020

______________________________
Jonathan Corbett
Plaintiff-Appellant
Attorney proceeding Pro Se
958 N. Western Ave., Suite 765
Hollywood, CA 90029
Phone/FAX: (310) 684-3870
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com

-7-
 Case 19-2152, Document 52, 02/13/2020, 2777572, Page8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document was served on all defendants via the CM/ECF

system on February 5th, 2020.

Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

February 5th, 2020

______________________________
Jonathan Corbett
Plaintiff-Appellant
Attorney proceeding Pro Se
958 N. Western Ave., Suite 765
Hollywood, CA 90029
Phone/FAX: (310) 684-3870
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com

-8-