9th Circuit upholds dismissal of man's lawsuit claiming Clallam County violated his 2nd Amendment rights…
Tron-Haukebo v. County of Clallam
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of man's lawsuit claiming Clallam County violated his 2nd Amendment rights by denying his concealed pistol license due to active restraining orders.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Anders Tron-Haukebo's lawsuit against Clallam County and two sheriff's office employees who denied his applications for a concealed pistol license. The court found that his claims related to the 2020 denial were filed too late, that some claims improperly asked a federal court to overturn state court restraining orders, and that the county was not liable under the theory he used. The employee who denied his 2023 application was protected by qualified immunity because no clearly established law at the time prohibited her conduct.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects people in Washington state who hold active restraining orders against them and seek concealed pistol licenses, as well as county law enforcement employees who process those applications under state law.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Anders Tron-Haukebo sued Clallam County, Washington, and two employees of its sheriff's office, arguing that denying his applications for a concealed pistol license violated his Second Amendment rights. The denials were based on active restraining orders issued against him by courts in King and Snohomish counties. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed dismissal on several independent grounds. First, the court found that all claims about the February 2020 license denial were time-barred. In Washington, lawsuits under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) must be filed within three years. Because Tron-Haukebo did not file suit until December 2023, more than three years after the 2020 denial, those claims were dismissed as too late. Second, some of Tron-Haukebo's arguments essentially asked the federal court to second-guess or overturn the state court judgments that issued the restraining orders against him, for example by arguing he was not properly served or was not a credible threat. The court dismissed those claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal courts from reviewing state court judgments in cases brought by the losing party in state court. Third, the court dismissed the claims against Clallam County itself. Under a legal rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, a local government can only be held liable under Section 1983 if the plaintiff shows a specific policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. Tron-Haukebo instead relied on a theory of respondeat superior, meaning he argued the county should be responsible simply because its employees acted wrongly. That theory does not apply to governments under Section 1983. Finally, regarding the 2023 license denial, the court granted qualified immunity to the employee who made that decision, Amy Oakes. Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability unless they violated a clearly established legal right. The court declined to decide whether Oakes actually violated the Second Amendment, but held that even if she did, the right was not clearly established at the time she acted. Tron-Haukebo cited the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, but that ruling came after Oakes denied his application, so it could not have put her on notice. At the time, Oakes was following existing Washington state law, and no prior case had found a constitutional violation in similar circumstances. The panel was unanimous and there was no dissent.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDERS TRON-HAUKEBO, No. 25-347 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-05051-DWC v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF CLALLAM; NELSON MORGAN; AMY OAKES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington David W. Christel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Anders Tron-Haukebo appeals the district court’s orders granting Clallam County, Nelson Morgan, and Amy Oakes’s motion for summary judgment and denying Tron-Haukebo’s motion for reconsideration, which resulted in the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissal of his case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a summary judgment ruling, and “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Fresenius Medical Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, 172 F.4th 718, 728 (9th Cir. 2026) (citation modified). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. Tron-Haukebo alleges that Clallam County and two Clallam County Sheriff’s Office employees, Morgan and Oakes, violated his Second Amendment rights by denying two applications for a concealed pistol license (the “2020 CPL application” and the “2023 CPL application”).1 Each denial was justified solely by reference to the active restraining orders against Tron-Haukebo. All claims related to the denial of the 2020 CPL application are time-barred. The statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Washington State is three years. Boston v. Kitsap County, 852 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2017). Tron-Haukebo filed suit on December 20, 2023, more than three 1 For the first time on appeal, Tron-Haukebo references a third concealed pistol license application, which was purportedly denied on April 8, 2025. Because “[d]ocuments or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal,” we do not consider this third denial. IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra, 962 F.3d 1111, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990)). 2 25-347 years after the February 4, 2020 denial of his 2020 CPL application. Some of Tron-Haukebo’s claims, including those that contest whether Tron- Haukebo was properly served in state court or appropriately deemed a “credible threat,” endeavor to challenge the state-court judgments that resulted in the issuance of the King County and Snohomish County protective orders. We dismiss those claims as they are not subject to federal-court review under the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. See T.M. v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 146 S. Ct. 1739, 1748 (2026) (“Rooker-Feldman continues to require dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction” in “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” (citation modified)). We dismiss Tron-Haukebo’s § 1983 claim against Clallam County because he failed to plead the existence of a “deliberate policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the constitutional violation [he] suffered.” Vanegas v. City of Pasadena, 46 F.4th 1159, 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation modified) (quoting AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012) and citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Srvs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Tron-Haukebo pled only a theory of respondeat superior liability, which cannot serve as the basis for municipal liability under § 1983. Id. 3 25-347 We finally affirm the district court’s dismissal on qualified immunity grounds of Tron-Haukebo’s § 1983 claim against Oakes for her denial of the 2023 CPL application. Our qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs, which can be addressed in either order. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). Under the first prong, we consider whether Tron-Haukebo experienced a violation of his constitutional rights. Under the second, we determine whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of Oakes’s denial of the CPL application. Id. at 232, 236. We do not decide whether the denial of Tron-Haukebo’s 2023 CPL application violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hold only that Oakes’s conduct did not violate clearly established law. Tron-Haukebo grounds his Second Amendment challenge upon United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), which was not decided until after the denial of Tron-Haukebo’s 2023 CPL application and so cannot have clearly established any relevant right. Oakes followed existing state law by denying Tron-Haukebo’s 2023 CPL application due to the active restraining orders. See RCW § 9.41.070(1)(a); RCW § 9.41.040(2)(a)(ii). At the time of the 2023 CPL application denial, there was no “case where an officer acting under similar circumstances ‘was held to have violated’ the Constitution.” Zorn v. Linton, 146 S. Ct. 926, 930 (2026) (per curiam) (quoting Escondido v. Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 43 (2019) (per curiam)). 4 25-347 Therefore, Oakes is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. AFFIRMED.2 The clerk shall file the Answering Brief submitted at Dkt. No. 7. The clerk shall amend the docket to remove defendant Clallam County Sheriff’s Office. 2 The motion to proceed in forma pauperis at Dkt. No. 6 is granted. The motions to proceed in forma pauperis at Dkt. No. 17 and Dkt. No. 18 are denied as moot. The motions for miscellaneous relief at Dkt. Nos. 19, 30, 31, and 34 are denied. 5 25-347
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.