Weinberg v. Department of Revenue, Services
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 386 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00155 (JCH) |
| Parties | Randy WEINBERG, Plaintiff, v. State of Connecticut DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SERVICES and Mark D. Boughton, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Cameron Lee Atkinson, Norman A. Pattis, Pattis & Smith, LLC, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.
James W. Caley, John Langmaid, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Randy Weinberg brought this action on February 5, 2021, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that Conn. Gen. Stat. section 12-651 is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants "from trying to collect any sum assessed against the Plaintiff in any fashion" under the same statute. Compl. at ¶ 41 (Doc. No. 1). In his Complaint, he alleges that section 12-651 impermissibly targets individuals who illegally possess drugs and "purports to impose a tax on the possession of drugs in the amount of $3.50 for each gram of marijuana, $200 [ ] on each gram of any other controlled substance, or $2,000 [ ] on each fifty dosage units of any controlled substance that cannot be measured by weight." Id. at ¶¶ 18-19. Because the tax is "punitive" and "imposes fines ... grossly disproportional to the offenses that it seeks to punish", he also alleges that – both facially and as applied – it violates the Double Jeopardy Clause the Fifth Amendment (Count One); the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Two); and the Excessive Fine Clause of the Eight Amendment (Count Three). Id. at 23-40.
Defendants State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services ("CT DRS") and Mark D. Boughton, sued in his official capacity as the Commissioner of CT DRS, have moved to dismiss Weinberg's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because his action is time-barred. See Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20); Mem. of Law in Supp. of the Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ( ) (Doc. No. 20-1); Reply Brief in Supp. of the Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ( ) (Doc. No. 23). Weinberg opposes that Motion. See Mem. of Law in Opp'n to the Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.’s Mem.") (Doc. No. 21).
For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
In 1998, plaintiff Randy Weinberg was convicted of drug possession with the intent to distribute. Compl. at ¶ 6. He was incarcerated for this offense and, after violating probation in 2001, was sent back to prison. Id. In 2002, while he was still in prison, CT DRS sent him a notice that it had assessed a tax penalty on him for the drugs it claimed were in his possession in 2001, pursuant to section 12-651. Id. at ¶ 7. Upon receiving the notice, Weinberg talked to fellow inmates, who had never heard of the tax. Id. at ¶ 8. He also "talked to the state who would only tell him that, regardless of what he did, they would get the money one way or another." Id. at ¶ 9.
Weinberg was finally released from prison in 2004. Id. at 10. Following his release, he attempted to turn his life around, attending college, maintaining a 4.0 GPA, getting a job, and avoiding folks who had historically had a bad influence on him. Id. CT DRS, however, began garnishing his wages to satisfy his outstanding tax obligations. Id. at ¶ 11. Weinberg alleges that this "left [him with] less than $200 per week to live on." Id. After four years of struggling with this burden, he says he had "no other option[ ]" but to "turn[ ] back to dealing drugs again in an effort to meet his basic human needs." Id. at ¶ 12.
Weinberg was soon after arrested and convicted for drug dealing offenses in 2010. Id. at ¶ 13. He was incarcerated until 2013, when he was released and again tried to reform his life. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. He found another job, bought a house, and "became a productive and honest member of society." Id. at ¶ 14. Still, his tax liability lingered. Due to interest and penalties, Weinberg alleges he now owes $124,344.38, and that the state is actively trying to collect that amount. Id. at ¶ 15. For instance, in 2019, the defendants issued him a "Certification for Tax Warrant", and subsequently used that document to forcibly take $1,000 from his bank account in 2020. Id. at ¶ 16. A year later, on January 5, 2021, they notified him that they had attached a real estate tax lien on his home and threatened to garnish his wages again. Id. at ¶ 17. In the face of these actions, Weinberg filed this lawsuit in February 2021.
In 1991, Connecticut passed into law "An Act Imposing a Tax on Marijuana or any Controlled Substance Produced, Transported, or Acquired by a Dealer", also known as H.B. No. 5033.1 See 1991 Conn. Legis. Serv. P.A. 91-397 (H.B. 5033) (WEST). H.B. No. 5033 imposed a tax "on any marijuana or controlled substances purchased, acquired, transported or imported into the state", with the tax "due and payable immediately upon acquisition or possession in this state by a dealer." Id. at § 2. For controlled substances "not sold by weight ... each fifty dosage units" were taxed at a rate of "two thousand dollars." Id. The tax exempted "persons lawfully in possession of marijuana or a controlled substance", and also imposed "a penalty of ten per cent of the deficiency or fifty dollars, whichever amount is greater, and interest at the rate of one and one-fourth per cent per month from the due date of such tax to the date of payment."2 Id. at § 6, 9. Moreover, "any dealer who violate[d] any provision of th[e] act" was required to "pay a penalty of one hundred per cent of the tax in addition to the tax imposed pursuant to section 2", and to be "fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than six years or both." Id. at § 11. H.B. No. 5033 was codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. section 12-650 et seq.
In his Complaint, Weinberg alleges that "[t]he legislative history of the statute is permeated with statements of legislative intent to punish." Compl. at ¶ 21. He provides two examples. The first is a statement from Representative John W. Thomas, in which he laments that Id. The second, a statement from Representative G. Metsopoulos, is explicit about Id.
Weinberg also alleges that the tax was inconsistently enforced. Id. at ¶ 20. Rather than supply the public with information to facilitate payment, he alleges, defendants "have only created and supplied law enforcement with forms necessary to refer people in possession of illicit drugs to them for summary assessment and collection." Id. Stated differently, defendants have "not taken any steps to apply the law on a general basis." Id. at ¶ 22. Instead, they have "selectively applied the statute to a limited number of [ ] people." Id.
Weinberg, of course, is one of these people. Shortly after filing his Complaint, he also filed an Emergency Application seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction to "stay[ ] all efforts by [defendants] to collect or attempt to collect any amount of the tax assessment that they ha[d] levied against [him]." See Pl.’s Emergency Application at 1 (Doc. No. 8). A week later, however, Weinberg withdrew his Motion after the parties agreed that defendants would "defer any enforcement action, including wage garnishment and other collections activities, during the pendency of this suit." See Mot. to Withdraw Emergency Mot. for a T.R.O. and a Prelim. Injunction at 1 (Doc. No. 13).
Defendants then filed their Motion to Dismiss. While that Motion has been pending, Governor Lamont signed into law June Special Session, Public Act No. 21-1. See generally C.G.S.A., June Sp. Sess., P.A. 21-1; Press Release, Governor Ned Lamont, Governor Lamont Signs Bill Legalizing and Safely Regulating Adult-Use Cannabis (June 22, 2021), https://portal.ct.gov/office-of-thegovernor/news/press-releases/2021/06-2021/governor-lamont-signs-bill-legalizing-andsafely-regulating-adult-use-cannabis. Section 173 of the Act repealed "[s]ections 12-651 to 12-660, inclusive ... of the [Connecticut] general statutes." C.G.S.A., June Sp. Sess., P.A. 21-1, § 173. In addition, section 130 of the Act repealed section 12-650 of the General Statutes and substituted the following in lieu thereof:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2021, any outstanding liabilities or assessments, or any portion thereof, made under said chapter related to the sale, purchase, acquisition or possession within the state or the transport or importation into the state, of marijuana, as defined in section 21a-240, shall be cancelled. The Commissioner of Revenue Services may take any action necessary to effectuate the cancellation of such liabilities and assessments. No cancellation of a liability or an assessment pursuant to this section shall entitle any person affected by such cancellation to a refund or credit of any amount previously paid or collected in connection with such liability or assessment.
Id. at § 130. Both these changes were effective as of July 1, 2021.
In light of this change of law, the court directed the parties to file a Joint Status Report addressing how, if at all, the repeal of H.B. No. 5033 affects their positions in the current action, including whether or not the case is moot in whole...
To continue reading
Request your trial