Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Federal Judge Saying The State of Colorado Was Allowing Religious Marijuana Rev Ryan Sasha-Shai Van Kush
Federal Judge Saying The State of Colorado Was Allowing Religious Marijuana Rev Ryan Sasha-Shai Van Kush
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On July 10, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure certain designated
deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claim in this action. (ECF No. 3). Specifically,
Plaintiff was directed to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis on the court-approved form. Additionally, Plaintiff was directed to file
In response, on July 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File Electronically (ECF
No. 4) and a Complaint (ECF No. 5). On July 25, 2018, the Court ordered Mr.
Gallagher to cure deficiencies and file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court
ordered Mr. Gallagher to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis
1
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
motion on the court-approved form and to file an amended Complaint that included all of
defendants’ names in the caption, addresses for the defendants, and complied with
Complaint. (ECF No. 9). In addition, subsequent to the Court’s July 25, 2018 Order,
Plaintiff submitted an additional twenty-nine documents to the Court. (See ECF Nos. 8,
10-18 and 20-28, and 30-39). None of the other filed documents are necessary for the
8.1(a). Although Mr. Gallagher alleges that the Tenth Circuit “has the Complaint,” (see
ECF No. 21 at 1), he has not filed a Notice of Appeal. Further, there is no dispositive
order to appeal.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss
the action if Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous or malicious, or fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. A legally frivolous claim is one in which the plaintiff asserts the
violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist or asserts facts that do not support
an arguable claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not
be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons
2
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
In his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9), Mr. Gallagher asserts the following two
claims: (1) “1st Amendment Violation by C.D.R. employees,” and (2) “Asked to leave
based on Creed.” For relief, he requests the Court to “cause the CoDoR, MEA to create
Religious process, similar to the DEA’s, and to award Punative [sic] Damages, and Civil
A. Claim One
In support of his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that he set up a meeting in October or
Religious exemption.” (ECF No. 9 at 4). When he arrived at the meeting, he was told
that they do “recreational and medical marijuana, not religious.” (Id.). When Plaintiff
explained that the DEA had a process to receive a religious exemption, Defendants Karl
Kramer and Christopher Pairier stated, “We are not the DEA” and acknowledged that
they were in violation of federal law. (Id.) Plaintiff states that his temple, the Shaivite
B. Claim Two
For his second claim, Plaintiff states that “[a]fter the events in Claim #1, [he] was
asked to leave and told [he] would be arrested if [he] did not leave, and no one would
read the Petition [he] had brought. There is probably video of this on their security
footage. (Karl Kramer & Christopher Pairier did this)[.]” (Id. at 5). According to Plaintiff,
he did leave and he has not yet received an exemption. He also alleges that “Cynthia
Coffman is Attorney General, and responsible for any Policy that caused either of these
claims.” (Id.)
3
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
II. Analysis
demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated. The fact that he has not
received a religious exemption from the State of Colorado to use illegal drugs does not
constitute a constitutional violation. Apparently the State of Colorado does not have a
religious exemption program. Despite not receiving an exemption, Mr. Gallagher makes
no allegations that the state or state actors have interfered with the practice of his
religion in anyway. Further, he fails to specify what drugs are involved in practicing his
religion and/or how they are used. Finally, the fact that state employees asked Mr.
Gallagher to leave their office does not constitute a constitutional violation. Therefore,
the Amended Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous because the asserted facts fail to
Additionally, the Court warns Mr. Gallagher that his numerous unresponsive
filings submitted in this action (and his other seven pending actions) appear abusive of
the judicial system. "[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor
action that is frivolous or malicious." Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir.
1989) (citations omitted) (per curiam). "Federal courts have the inherent power to
appropriate circumstances." Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007)
(citing Sieverding v. Colo. Bar. Ass’ n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006); Tripati,
4
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
Id.
litigant from filing any claims without first seeking prior leave of court. See Ketchum v.
Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992); Winslow v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 677- 78
(D. Colo. 1991); Colorado ex rel. Colo. Judicial Dep't v. Fleming, 726 F. Supp. 1216,
1221 (D. Colo. 1989). Therefore, Mr. Gallagher is warned that if he files new frivolous
sanctions.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and this action are
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
5