Dunn v. Schmitz

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action, alleging that defendants violated his due process rights by depriving him of liberty interest in future employment, when: (1) defendants wrongly designated him as “not in good standing” upon his retirement from Illinois State Police, which precluded him from obtaining concealed-carry license due to his status as retired police officer; (2) said designation limited his rights to carry concealed weapon under federal and state law; and (3) if prospective employers learn of his designation, he would be disqualified from future positions in law enforcement and private security. Although plaintiff asserted that his not-in-good-standing designation was not justified, as, according to plaintiff, he was not target of federal criminal investigation either at time he was placed on probation or at time he retired, he still could not prevail on instant due process claim, because he lacked evidence that defendants had actually disclosed his designation to potential employer or had foreclosed plaintiff future job prospects, where plaintiff had not presented evidence that he could not have applied for concealed=carry license as private citizen under Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Moreover, plaintiff failed to present evidence that any law enforcement or private-security employer had ever denied, or would deny, him position because of said designated status.