You are on page 1of 10

Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 18

» ,Case2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document? Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 10 PagelD#44

ProSe >(Rev. 12/16)Complaintfor a CivilCase —

United States District Court
for the
District of


Case No.
(tobefilled in bythe Clerk'sOffice)

(Writethefull name ofeachplaintiffvrho isfiling this complaitU.

Ifthe namesofall theplaintiffscannotfit in the space above,
Juiy Trial: (check one) Qves I Ino
please write"see eutached" inthe spaceand attach an additional
page with thefull list ofnames.)

(XSi Defend^^
(Write tlKfitll none ofeach defendant who is beingsued. Ifthe ^
names ofall the defendants cannotfit in the space above, please )
write "see attached" inthe space and attach anadditionalpage )
with thefidl list ofnames.)


I. The Parties to This Complaint

A. ThePIaintiffifs)

Provide the information below for eachplaintiffnamed in the complaint Attach additional pages if


Street Address

City and County VAiA

State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address

B. The DefendaDt(5)

Provide the information below for each defendant named in the complaint, whether the defendant is an
individual, a governmentagency,an organization, or a corporation. For an individual defendant,
includethe person'sjob or title (ifknown). Attach additionalpages if needed.

Page I of 5
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 19
" . Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 . Page 2 of 10 PagelD# 45

ProSe I (Rev. 12/16)Copi«]|ainifo^ —-

Defendant No. 1


Job or Title (ifknown)

Street Address

City and County

State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (ifknown)

Defendant No. 2


Job or Title (ifknown)

Street Address

City and County

State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address 0"known)

Defendant No. 3


Job or Title ^fknown)

Street Address

City and County

State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (ifknown)

Defendant No. 4


Job or Title (ifhwwn)

Street Address

City and County

State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (ifknown)

Page 2 of 5
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 20
• •Case2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 3 of 10 Page ID# 46

Pro Se 1 (Rev. 12/16)Complaint for a Chfil Case —=

IL Basis for Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts oflimited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types ofcases can be
heard infederal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity ofcitizenship of the
parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, acase arising under the United States Constitution orfederal laws ortreaties
isa federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a case in which a citizen ofone State sues a citizen of
another State or nation and the amountat stake is more than $75,000 is a diversityof citizenship case. In a
diversity ofcitizenship case, nodefendant may bea citizen of the same State as any plaintiff.

What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction? (check allthat apply)
^tpederal question • Diversity ofcitizenship
Fill out theparagraphs in thissection that apply to this case.

A. If the Basis for Jurisdiction Is a Federal Question

Listthe specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions ofthe United States Constitution that
are at issue m this case.

B. Ifthe Basis for Jurisdiction Is Diversity ofCitizenship

1. The Plainti£[(s)

a. If the plaintiifis an individual

The plaintiff, (name) \hJA^\\l>tCe^ ,is acitizen ofthe
State of (name)

b. If the plaintiffis a corporation

The plaintiff, (name) , is incorporated
under the laws of the State of (name)
and has its principal placeof business in the Stateof(name)

(Ifmore than oneplaintiffis named in the complaint, attach an additionalpage providingthe

same informationfor each additionalplaintiff)

2. TheDefendant(s)

a. Ifthe defendant is an individual

The defendant, (name) , is a citizen of
the State of . Or is acitizen of
(foreign nation)

Page 3 of 5
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID# 21
• • Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 4 of 10 PagelD# 47

Pro Se 1(Rev^l2/16)Coingam^ ^ —

b. If the defendant is a corporation

The defendant, (name) »is incorporated under
the laws ofthe State of(name) ,and has its
principal place of business in theState of(name) .
Or is incorporated underthe lawsof foreign nation)
and has its principal placeofbusiness in (name)

(Ifmore than one defendant isnamed inthe complaint, attach an additionalpage providing the
sameinformationfor each additional deferuiant.)

3, The Amount in Controversy

Theamount in controversy-tiie amount the plaintiffclaims the defendant owesor the amount at
stake-is more than $75,000, not counting interestand costs of court, because (explain):

^600.006/ 006
m. Statement of Claim

Write a short andplain statement ofthe claim. Do notmake legal arguments. State as briefly as possible the
facts showing that each plaintiffisentitled tothe damages or other reliefsought State how each defendant was
involved and what eachdefendantdid that caused the plaintiffharm or violated the plaintiffs rights, including
the datesand places ofthat involvement or conduct. Ifmore thanoneclaim is asserted, number eachclaim and
write a short andplain statement of eachclaim in a separate paragraph. Attach additional pages ifneeded.

OSk ^1 911
IV. Relief

State briefly and precisely whatdamages or otherrelief theplaintiffasksthe courtto order. Do not make legal
arguments. Includeany basis for clauning that the wrongsallegedare continuingat the presenttime. Include
the amountsof any actual damages claimed for the acts allegedand the basis for these amounts. Includeany
punitive or exemplary damages claimed, the amounts, and the reasons you claimyou are entitled to actual or
punitive money damages.

Page4of S
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID# 22
• Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 5 of 10 PagelD# 48

V. Certification and Closing

UnderFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,by signing below, I certify tothe bestofmyknowledge, information,
and beliefthat this complaint: (1) is not beingpresented foran improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessaiy delay, orneedlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing lawor by a
nonfnvolous argument forextending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3)thefactual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and(4) thecomplaint otherwise complies with the
requirements ofRule 11.

A. For Parties Without an Attorney

I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may be
served. I understand thatmyfailure to keep a current address onfile with theClerk's OfRce may result
in the dismissal of my case.

Date ofsigning:

SignatureofPlaintiff // ]^0a
Printed Name ofPlaintilBf

B. For Attorneys

Date ofsigning:

Signature of Attorney
Printed Name ofAttorney
Bar Number

Name of Law Firm

Street Address

State and Zip Code

Telephone Number
E-mail Address

Page S of 5
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID# 23
,Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 6 of 10 PagelD# 49

Advancing Legal >M!cal ftferquanaThefapeuticsami Research ^
Home(/l-« / Legal (/legal) —' Legal Information By State 8. Federal Law (/state.andjederaljaw)- • / Federal Legal Infofmatlon (/federaUegalJnformatlon)

Federal Marijuana Law

Despite medical cannabis laws in 44states, cannabis is still illegal under federal law. The federal government regulates drugs
through theControlled Substances Act(CSA) (21 U.S.C §811). which does not recognize thedifference between medical and
recreational use of cannabis. These laws are generally applied only against personswho possess, cultivate, or distribute large
quantities of cannabis.
Under federallaw, cannabis is treated like everyother controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal
government places every controlled substance in a schedule, inprinciple according to its relative potential for abuse and
medicinal value. Under the CSA, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views
cannabis as highly addictive andhaving nomedical value. Doctors may not"prescribe" cannabis for medical use underfederal
law, though they can "recommend" its use under the First Amendment.
Federal cannabis lawsare veryserious,and punishment for people found guilty is frequently verysteep. Federal lawstill
considers cannabis a dangerous illegal drugwith no acceptable medicinal value. In several federal cases,judgeshaveruled that
medical issues cannot be usedas a defense, though defense attorneys should attempt to raisethe Issuewhenever possible
duringtrial. Federal lawappliesthroughout Washington D.C. and the United States, not just on federal property.
As of 2016,several federal agencies have issued guidelinesand other policy memorandums to manage the conflict between
federal and state laws as they pertain to medical marijuana. On August 29,2013 the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a
guidance memo to prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substance Act(CSA) making it clear
that prosecutingstate legal medical marijuana cases is not a priority. The memo included eightguidelines for prosecutors to
use to determine current federal enforcement priorities. Fortunately, most medicalcannabis program's regulations require the
same guidelines ensuring that any business with a licenses are meeting these requirements as well.These guidelines include:
1. Preventing of distribution of marijuana to minors;
2. Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs or cartels;
3. Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legalunder to state law in some form to other states;
4. Preventingstate-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or a pretext to trafficother illegal drugs or other
illegal activity;
5. Preventing violence or the use of firearms in cultivation and distribution of marijuana;
6. Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
7. Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environment dangers posed by
marijuana production on public lands;
8. Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

There are two types of federal sentencing laws: sentencing guidelines, enacted by the United States Sentencing Commission,
and mandatory sentencing laws, enacted by Congress. The Sentencing Commission was created in 1987 to combat sentencing
disparities across jurisdictions. The current mandatory minimum sentences were enacted in a 1986 drug bill. Federal sentencing
guidelines take into account not only the amount of cannabis involved in the arrest but also the past convictions of the accused.
Not all cannabis convictions require jail time under federal sentencing guidelines, but all are eligible for imprisonment.
Ifconvicted and sentenced to jail, a minimum of 85% of that sentence must be served. The higher the amount of cannabis, the
more likely one is to be sentenced to jail time, as opposed to probation or alternative sentencing. Even for a defendant with
multiple prior convictions, being charged with low-level offenses may lead to probation for the entire sentence of one to twelve
months, with no jail time required. Possession of over 1 kg of cannabis with no prior convictions carries a sentence of six to
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID# 24
Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD7DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 7 of10 PagelD# 50 *•'
twelve months with a possibility ofprobation andalternative sentendng. Over 2.5 kg with nocriminal record carries a sentence
ofat leastsixmonths injail; with multiple prior convictions, a sentence might be upto two yearsto threeyears injail with no
chance for probation.
In UnitedStates v. Booker(2005), a Supreme Court decision fi-om January 2005, the courtruled that the federal sentendng
guidelines (asoutlined above) are advisory and no longer mandatory. In addition to the sentendng guidelines, thereare
statutory mandatory minimum sentences, which remain In effect after UnitedStatesv. Bookeran6 primarily targetoffenses
involving large amounts ofcannabls. There isa five-year mandatory minimum for cultivation of100 plants or possession of
10Okgs, and there isa 10-year mandatory minimum fortheseoffenses ifthe defendant hasa prior felony drugconviction.
Cultivation or possession of1000kg or 1000 plants triggers a 10yearmandatory minimum, with a 20-year mandatory sentence if
the defendant hasone prior felony drugconviction, and a life sentence with twoprior felony drug convictions.

Conflict between State and Federal Law

As ofthis printing, the federal government claims that marijuana is not medicine and in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the United
States Supreme Court held that the federal government hasdie constitutional authority to prohibit maryuana forall purposes.
Thus, federal law enforcement officials mayprosecute medical marijuana patients, even iftheygrow theirownmedicine and
evenifthey reside ina state where medical marijuana useis protected understate law. TheCourt Indicated that Congress and
the Foodand DrugAdministration should workto resolvethis issue.
The Raich dedsiondoes not saythat the laws of California (oranyother medical marijuana state)are unconstitutional; nordoes
it invalidate them inanyway. Also, it does notsaythat federal officials must prosecute patients. Decisions about prosecution are
stillleft to the discretion of the federal govemment.
According to a post-Raich statement by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, theruling does notoverturn California law
permitting the useofmedical marijuana. Lockyer also underscored the role oflocal law enforcement inupholding state, not
federal, law. Asuperior courthas rejected the County ofSan Diego's claim ina lawsuit filed against the State that California's
medical marijuana lawsare preempted byfederal law. As of this printing, that case is pendingon appeal.
States have recognized marijuana's medical value and have eitherpassed laws through theirlegislatures or adopted themby
initiative. Insupportofthe numerous statesthat have taken responsibility forthe health andwelfare oftheirpeople, and have
implemented medical marijuana laws, ASA isfighting forstates'ability andright to pass andenforce their own laws, regardless
of federal law.

CJS 2016 Budget Amendment Provides Protection

In 2014 and 2015, Congress called a ceasefire inthe federal waron medical cannabis. In the first change in federal law affecting
patientssince1970, when it classified cannabis as a dangerousdrugwith no medical use, Congress approved a budget
amendment that prohibitsJustice Department funds from being usedto prevent statesfrom implementing medical cannabis
laws. These restrictions on federal enforcement are part ofthe 2016 funding bill forthe Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) budgets
and expire at the end of the fiscal year, September 30,2016.
Known as the Rohrabacher-Farr or CJS amendment it firstsigned into lawon December 16,2014 and then againon December
18,2015. TheRohrabacher-Farr amendmentdoesn'tjust preventdirectinterference with state implementation; it shouldalso
end federal medical cannabis raids, arrests, criminal prosecutions, and civil asset forfeiture lawsuits, as well as providing current
medicalcannabis prisoners with a way to petition for their release.
Similar bipartisanamendments to limitfederal enforcement in medical cannabis states have been offered seven times overthe
past 12years withoutsuccess.Overthe past fewyears, ASA has promoted citizen lobbying as part of the annual National
Medical Cannabis Unity Conference and Lobby Dayin Washington, DC. Hundreds ofvisitsfrom patients and advocates have
helped demonstrate to Members of Congress that medicalcannabis is an issue important to their constituents.

Federal Courts uphold the CJS Protections

(/.5. VMarin AHlanee for MedicalMarijuana (Northern Disttict ofCalifornia)
OnOctober 19'^ 2015 judge Breyer from SanFrancisco's federal courtruledthat the prosecutions of medical cannabis
defendants must be consistent with the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment in a long-standing case with Marin Alliance for Medical
Marijuana(MAMM) and its founder LynetteShaw.Judge Breyer ruled that the Amendment "forbids the Department ofJustice
from enfordngthis injunctionagainst MAMM to the extent that MAMM operates in compliance withstate California law." In
other words, as longas providei^adhere to state law,the Amendment prevents DOj from shutting down state-legal providers.
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID# 25
^ Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document? Filed 06/22/17 Page 8 of 10 PagelD#51
While this is a majorvictory for medical cannabis patients and providers, it is important to note that this case is not binding in
other federaljurisdictions, and judges in otherjurisdictions couldruleotherwise. Inearly2015, a federaljudge inWashington
State refusedto dismiss the Kettle Falls Five case whenpresented with a motion invoking the AmendmentHowever, the judgeIn
that case had determined that there was a strong likelihood that the defendants had violated state law,and there was not a
similar determination made in the MAMM case.
Harborside ease

In May 2016 the DOj dropped Itscivil forfeiture actionagainstHarborside Health Center in Oakland, CA. Thecase was broughtby
Che DOJ backin 2011 as part of a federal crackdown againstlegal state medical cannabis dispensaries. Thedropping ofthe case
wasat leastInpartthe result ofthe Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which prevents the DOJ from interfering with thoseabiding
by their state medical cannabis law.
Since the Harborside wasdropped, itdoesnotcarry any binding legal precedentHowever, thefactthat Itwas dropped strongly
suggests that the federal prosecutors thought they wouldlose the case had it continued in the courts.
US. vs. Mclntosh (9th Circuit)
The mostImportant careInvolving the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment took place in the federal 3thCircuit Court. In the August
2016decision of US. vs. Mdntoshmttps://fdn.caQ iisrn»rts.pov/datasrnre/opinions/2016/08/16/1 S-lOil 7.pdf^. the court held
that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibits the federal prosecution ofconduct that isallowed bythe state's medical
cannabis law.

In the opinion,Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlaln wrote:

We therefore conclude that, at a minimum, §542prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevantappropriations actsfor
theprosecution ofindividuals who engagedinconductpermitted bytheStateMedical Marijuana ijiwsandwho fully
complied withsuch laws.
The opinion remanded all ofthecases thatincluded intheappellate ruling back to the trial court. Iffederal prosecutors want to
continue pursuing their casesagainstthe defendants, theymust prove at an evidentiary hearing that the defendantviolated
state law.

Federal Agencies Grappling with State Conflict

Today, several federal agencies have issued guidelines and otherpolicy memorandums thatarelegitimate efforts to manage the
emerging issueswithin medical marijuana. In fact, as of2016, everyfederal agency exceptthe Dru^ Enforcemenr Adminigfrafinn
fPEAHhttD:// chief shows vet again he has no rlnp about marijuanaV has stopped ignoring
medical cannabis. Starting with the 2009 Ogden memo and laterthe 2013 byDeputy Attorney General James Cole, the
Departmentofjustice has made clear that state legalmedical mariiuanais not a priority
fhttD://>. In2010, the VA updatedtheir policies
fhttp://www.nytimes.cpm/201Q/Q7/24/health/poltq//24veterans.htmh to no longerdenyveterans'accessto medical services due
to their participation in a state-legal medicalmarijuana program. In 2014,the TreasuryDepartment issued guidelines to
facilitate banking in the marijuana industry. f
banks.html? r=0^

Information being disseminated to the publicfrom federal agencies has also improved, including the National Institute of Drug
Abuse (NIDA) DrugFacts: Is MarijuanaMeriirine? /http;// the
Food and Drug Administration's FDA and Marijuana; Questions and Answers
fhftp://vwtfw fda.gotf/NewsEvents/PubiicHealthFocus/i irm42i 168.htm) and the National Cancer Institute's Cannabis and
Cannahinoids (httD://wuw;^. Research barriers are are also
beginningto fall, with the Office of National DrugControlPolicy lifting the Public HealthService review
fhttp://www.usnews.coni/news/articles/2Q15/06/22/majnr.pot-researrli.harrier-gQes.up-in-smokeV a hurdle only cannabis
researchers had to clear in 2015.Likewise, NIDA now supports lettingother research centers growresearch cannabis, endingthe
NIDA monopoly.
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID# 26
Case 2;17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 9of 10 PagelD# 52

Know yourfacts! I am a natural bom conservative. Read the

Federal law on marijuana. President Nixon igaored the Federal law
on marijuana. Marijuana has been altering the minHs ofthe
American people since the early 60's, Check my fects! This is the

Wallace Godwin

Viiginia Beach, VA
Case 2:18-mj-00166 Document 12 Filed 03/27/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID# 27
•Case 2:17-cv-00272-RGD-DEM Document 7 Filed 06/22/17 Page 10 of 10 PagelD#53

WA.V\i>>cg. C>e3ehu^\r\


Civil Action Numben



I declare under penalty ofpetjiuy that:

No attorney has prepared, or assisted in the preparation of Coryy\A.irNV''P'or /kCiWl
(Title ofDocmnentj
Name ofPro SeParty (Print or

Signature ofi'ro SeParty

Executed on: ^


The following attomey(s) prepared or assisted me in preparation of

(Name ofAttorney)

(Address of Attorney)

(Telephone Number ofAttorney)

Prepared, orassisted in the preparation o^ this document

(Name ofProSe Party (Print or Type)

Signature ofPro SeParty

Executed on: (Date)