USA v. Woolridge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
- )
Plaintiff, ) CASENO.: 5:25 CR 249
,
	)
.)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
} AND ORDER
•
	)
JOSHUA WOOLRIDGE, )
■
	y
Defendant. )
This matter is before the Court on Defendant, Joshua Woolridge's Motion to Dismiss
Indictment, and Supplerhent. (ECF #25,26). The Government filed a Response in Opposition to
the Motion. (ECF #33). The Defendant argUes that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(I) is unconstitutional both
facially, and as applied to his circiunstances.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND'
Mr. Woolridge had two prior felony convictions. The first was a state court conviction for
possession of cocaine. (Case No. 2004-08-2729, Court of Common Please of Summit Covmty,
Ohio). The second was a federal conviction for being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. (Case
The facts have been taken from the allegations in the indictment. These facts are
accepted as true for purposes of this opinion only. They should not be construed as
findings of the Court.
Case: 5:25-cr-00249-DCN Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/04/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

No. 5:21 CR 145, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio). He was
subsequently found to be in possession of two semiautomatic pistols and ammunition. (EOF #1).
ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that following the United States Supreme Court decision in New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(l), the statute
prohibiting possession of a weapon by people who have been previously convicted of a crime
punishable by imprisonment of a term exceeding one year, is unconstitutional both facially and as
applied.
A. Facial Challenge
Following the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified its position
on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(l) by upholding the constitutionality of the statute
against "individual[s] found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of anther."
United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024). Based, at least in part, on thQ Rahimi holding, the
Sixth Circuit has determined that felon dispossession laws, such as 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(l) are "not
susceptible to a facial challenge." United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 662-63 (6"* Cir. 2024).
Since that holding, the Sixth Circuit has continued to hold that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(l) is
constitutional on its face in every case that has since been brought before it. See, e.g., United
States V. Partee, No. 24-5114, 2024 WL 4224982 (6* Cir. Sept. 18, 2024); United States v.
Dorsey, No. 24-5129, 2024 WL 4250319 (6*'' Cir. Sept. 20, 2024); United States v. Parham, No.
24-5025,2024 WL 4511825 (6*^ Cir. Oct. 17,2024); United States v. Gailes, No. 23-5928,2024
WL 4457416 (6"' Cir. Oct. 10,2024). For this reason. Defendant's facial challenge to the
Case: 5:25-cr-00249-DCN Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/04/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(l) fails.
B. Challenge As Applied
The Supplement to Mr. Woolridge's Motion contends that even if the felon in possession
law withstands a facial challenge, it is unconstitutional as applied through his indictment. He
contends that he possessed the weapons at issue for self protection, and that this use is protected by
the plain text of the Second Amendment. He further argues that his predicate offenses "do not
suggest that his is particularly 'dangerous,' or otherwise subject to firearm restrictions like those
targeted at the founding.
This Court is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decisions, and the Sixth Circuit has held
otherwise. The Williams court held that "most applications of §922(g)(l) are constitutional" when
applied to dangerous people. 1113 F.4th at 662-63. It further held that it is the defendant's burden
to make an individualized showing that he is not dangerous. Id. at 662. Mr. Woolridge has failed
to meet that burden. He relies only on case law outside of the Sixth Circuit, and has not addressed
his own criminal history to explain why he should not be deemed a "dangerous" person. As the
burden is on him, and he has not attempted to make an individualized showing that he is not
dangerous, the statute is constitutional as applied.
Further, it is clear that he has not addressed his criminal history because it would not
support his contention that he should not be considered dangerous. Mr. Woolridge has an
extensive criminal history that includes multiple examples of dangerous conduct. He has prior
convictions for possession of cocaine, attempted participation in a criminal gang, grand theft of a
firearm, having weapons under disability, felon in possession of a firearm, and misdemeanor
assault. This combination of offenses conduct clearly illustrates that Mr. Woolridge's is
Case: 5:25-cr-00249-DCN Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/04/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

dangerous, and his possession of weapons would be likely to endanger the community. Accord,
United States v. Gaither, 2024 WL 4567281 at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2024).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Defendant, Mr.Woolridge's Motion to
Dismiss the Indictment is not supported by the record or by the applicable law. The motion is,
therefore, DENIED. (EOF #25, 26). IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: S Uil,
DONALD C: NUGENT
United States District Judge
Case: 5:25-cr-00249-DCN Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/04/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>