United States v. Marin Alliance for Med. Marijuana

• Decision Date: 19 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 98-00086 CRB,C 98-00086 CRB
• Citation: 139 F.Supp.3d 1039
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, and Lynette Shaw, Defendants.

139 F.Supp.3d 1039

United States of America, Plaintiff,

v.Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, and Lynette Shaw, Defendants.

No. C 98-00086 CRB

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed October 19, 2015

Kathryn L. Wyer, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff

Greg Anton, Lagunitas, CA, for Defendant

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION

CHARLES R. BREYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana ("MAMM") asks this Court to dissolve a permanent injunction that this Court entered against it in 2002. See Mot. Dissolve Perm. Inj. (dkt. 262). Having reviewed the filings and accompanying papers, the Court DENIES the motion to dissolve the injunction. However, the enforcement of said injunction must be consistent with the new directive of Congress in Section 538 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, Pub. L. 113–235, 128 Stat. 2130 (2014)("2015 Appropriations Act"),¹ which prohibits the Department of Justice from expending any funds in connection with the enforcement of any law that interferes with California's ability to "implement [its] own State law[ ] that authorize[s] the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." See 2015 Appropriations Act § 538. As long as Congress precludes the Department of Justice from expending funds in this manner, the permanent injunction will only be enforced against MAMM insofar as that organization is in violation of California "State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." See id. ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

I. BACKGROUND

As a matter of federal law, marijuana is prohibited as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"). 21 U.S.C. § 812(c). But under state law, California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 exempted from state criminal prosecution physicians, patients, and primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medicinal purpose with a physician's recommendation. See Cal. Health and Safety Code Ann. §§ 11362.5 ("Compassionate Use Act"). The Compassionate Use Act was passed in a state-wide November 1996 referendum with the support of 56% of voters. United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club , 5 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1091 (N.D.Cal.1998)(dkt. 61).

This Court has a lengthy history with this defendant on these issues. In 1998, the Government filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against MAMM (and five other medical marijuana dispensaries, all of which were deemed related and reassigned to this Court) on the grounds that it was engaged in the distribution of marijuana in violation of the CSA. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. At that time, the City and County of San Francisco and other cities in which the related defendants are located, acting as amici curiae, "urge[d] the Court not to adopt the injunctive relief sought by the federal government because of the adverse consequences an injunction would have on the public health of their citizens." Cannabis Cultivators Club , 5 F.Supp.2d at 1094. But this Court determined that the preliminary injunction "must be granted" on the grounds of there being "a strong likelihood that defendants' conduct violates the Controlled Substances Act, [and thus] the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution requires that the Court enjoin further violations of the Act." Cannabis Cultivators Club , 5 F.Supp.2d at 1091, 1105.

Thereafter, defendants openly violated this Court's preliminary injunction, which prompted the Government to initiate contempt proceedings. In the litigation that ensued, defendants sought to modify the preliminary injunction to exclude distributions of marijuana that were medically necessary, which this Court denied on October 16, 1998. See Order (dkt. 174). The Ninth Circuit reversed this Court in an interlocutory appeal of that decision, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co – Op ("OCBC") , 190 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir.1999), and in turn were reversed by the Supreme Court, United States v. OCBC , 532 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001). There, the Supreme Court held that there is no medical necessity exception to the CSA's prohibition on the manufacture and distribution of marijuana. OCBC , 532 U.S. at 486, 121 S.Ct. 1711. In so doing, the Supreme Court explained that even when a district court is exercising its equity jurisdiction in the course of fashioning an injunction, its usual discretion to "consider the necessities of the public interest" was "displaced" by the "judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation." Id. at 496–98, 121 S.Ct. 1711. As applied here, then, the district court may weigh whether an injunction should be the means of enforcing the statute instead of another permissible means of enforcement—"not whether enforcement is preferable to no enforcement at all." Id. at 497–98, 121 S.Ct. 1711. "Consequently, when a court of equity exercises its discretion, it may not consider the advantages and disadvantages of nonenforcement of the statute, but only the advantages and disadvantages of 'employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction' over the other available methods of enforcement." Id. at 498, 121 S.Ct. 1711(quoting Weinberger v. Romero – Barcelo , 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982)). "To the extent the district court considers the public interest and the conveniences of the parties, the court is limited to evaluating how such interest and conveniences are affected by the selection of an injunction over other enforcement mechanisms." Id.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the OCBC defendants moved to dissolve their preliminary injunctions in this Court and the Government moved for summary judgment and for a permanent injunction. See Mem. and Order May 3, 2002 (dkt. 229). This Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment and, after the defendants declined to reassure this Court that they would not resume their distribution activity, entered a permanent injunction on June 10, 2002. See United States v. Cannabis Cultivator's Club , No. 98–85 et al., 2002 WL 1310460 (June 10, 2002); Mem. and Order June 20, 2002 (dkt. 247); Permanent Injunction (dkt. 248).

For the next near-decade, defendant MAMM continued to operate a medical marijuana dispensary out of its same location. The United States Attorney's Office waited until September 2011 to send cease and desist letters to MAMM and other medical marijuana dispensaries in the area. The Mayor of the Town of Fairfax responded with a series of letters to United States Attorney Melinda Haag stating that MAMM was operating as a model business in careful compliance with its local Use Permit in a "cooperative and collaborative relationship" with the community. See Bragman Letter October 2011, Anton Aff. in Support of Defendant's Mot. to Dissolve Perm. Injunction (dkt. 262-3) at Ex. 2. The Mayor explained that Marin has "the highest documented rate of breast cancerin the United States," and Marin's breast cancerpatients have especially benefitted from MAMM. Id. He asserted that "elimination of this vital community access facility would effectively prevent [patients] from obtaining medical marijuana," with the "paradoxical impact of increasing public safety concerns for local law enforcement" if the market were pushed underground. Id. According to the letter, the "record clearly establishes that [MAMM] has been in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state and local laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." Id. To avoid "needlessly increas[ing] the suffering of hundreds of patients who have come to rely on [MAMM] as a safe access point for medical marijuana," he urged Haag "to exercise [her] discretion to reconsider [her] office's evaluation of the legal viability of [MAMM] in light of its documented record of lawful operation and benefit to the community." Id. ²

The U.S. Attorney's Office nevertheless pressed its forfeiture action. In response, MAMM and three other dispensaries filed suit seeking to enjoin the Government from taking any enforcement action against them. See Am. Compl. (dkt. 21), Marin Alliance For Med. Marijuana v. Holder , 866 F.Supp.2d 1142 (N.D.Cal.2011)(No. 11–5349 SBA). The court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and granted the Government's motion to dismiss. See Marin Alliance , 866 F.Supp.2d 1142 (N.D.Cal.2011); Marin Alliance , No. 11–5349, 2012 WL 2862608 (N.D.Cal.July 11, 2012).

Seven days after the initial complaint in that litigation was filed, the Government initiated a forfeiture action against the property on which MAMM operated. See Compl., United States v. Real Property Located at 6 School Street, Fairfax, California , No. 11–cv–5596 (filed Nov. 18, 2011). The forfeiture complaint cited this Court's permanent injunction and MAMM's violation of the CSA given that it was operating a medical marijuana dispensary. See id. The litigation was resolved in a settlement with the property owner, who agreed no longer to rent the property to MAMM in exchange for the Government's agreement not to seize the property. See Stipulation and Order ¶ 4 (dkt. 18), No. 11–5596.

Then the legal and factual circumstances changed. Section 538 of the 2015 Appropriations Act—which governed Treasury Funds for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and which has now been extended until December 11, 2015, by the 2016 Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 114–53, § 103, 129 Stat. 502 (2015)—states as follows:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of...California [and 32 other states], to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

2015 Appropriations Act § 538. MAMM argues that the injunction is now unenforceable under Section 538 and should therefore be...