g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint

8/2/2019 g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint

1/29

MATTHEW S. PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)2 CHARLES M. FARANO (SBN: 86915)DAVID R. WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 Lake Forest Drive, #B5-107 "Lake Forest, CA 92630 , r . , -- " Phone: (949) 382-1485 :,. -4 -I.'"Facsimile: (949) 242-2605 ,- .E-Mail : [email protected] -5 : - . ~ r ;",Neo- .6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs , . '> ., . - ~ 7 " -: -. ,'"'"89

10

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT I wCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1112 MARLA JAMES; KATHERINEALDRICH; and VlCTORIA PAPPAS,


2/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VE RIFIE D COMPL AINT

2

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

PARTIES

2. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (United States) is a

sovereign government established and operating under the United States Constitution.

3. Defendant ERIC HOLDER (HOLDER) is the Attorney General of

Defendant UNITED STATES.

4. Defendants CITY OF COSTA MESA (COSTA MESA) and CITY OF

LAKE FOREST (LAKE FOREST) are municipal entities incorporated under and

operating pursuant to the California state constitution.

5. Plaintiffs MARLA JAMES and VICTORIA PAPPAS (PAPPAS) are

residents of Orange County, California. Plaintiff KATHERINE ALDRICH

(ALDRICH) is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

6. Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS are individuals who suffer from severe

disability or permanent injury. Both are patients with recommendations for medica

cannabis from licensed California doctors. Plaintiffs JAMES, PAPPAS, and ALDRICH

are each at least or over the age of eighteen (18) and registered California voters.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On June 21, 1788, the United States Constitution was ratified.

8. Article 1 of the United States Constitution established a geographica

district for the government of the United States (the District of Columbia) and provided

that Congress shall exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever in the

District. (U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17.)

9. On September 9, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850, the State of

California was admitted to the United States undivided as a free state.

10. In 1907, California enacted the Poison Act (Stats. 1913, Ch. 342) which

criminalized the possession of marijuana under state law.

11. On October 27, 1970, Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances

Act(CSA) as Title 2 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of


3/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


3

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

1970 (CDAPC), P.L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970). The CSA is codified at

21 U.S.C. 801, et. seq.

12. The CSA lists controlled substances in five (5) schedules. The CSA

prohibits possession, transportation, manufacture, distribution, and storage of controlled

substances listed on Schedule 1. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). Furthermore, substances listed on

Schedule 1 may not be prescribed by a physician. (21 U.S.C. 812(b).)

13. Marijuana is listed on Schedule 1 of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(c)(c)(10)

Tetrahydrocannabinols, a component of marijuana, is also listed on Schedule 1 of the

CSA. (21 U.S.C. 812(c)(c)(17).)

14. On December 24, 1973, Congress enacted the District of ColumbiaHome

Rule Act. P.L. 93-198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code 1-201, et. seq. (Dec. 24, 1973

Amended Oct. 21, 1998.) In theHome Rule Act, Congress retains full plenary authority

over the District. (DC ST 1-206, Sec. 601.)

15. On November 5, 1996, pursuant to article 2 of their state constitution

California voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA)

providing for marijuana possession, personal cultivation, and use for seriously ill

Californians possessing a recommendation for medical cannabis made by a licensed

doctor. (Ca. Health and Safety Code 11362.5.)

16. On November 3, 1998, citizens in the federal District of Columbia voted to

approve D.C. Act 13-138, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatmentballot

initiative. (D.C. Initiative 59; Nov. 1998). Congress did not authorize the D.C. citizens

vote on Initiative 59.

17. On October 21, 1998, Congress enacted P.L. 105-277 (Stat. 2681-150), a

consolidated appropriations law, providing, at Sec. 171 (Section 171), [N]one of the

funds contained in this Act may be used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to

legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution

of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any


4/29


5/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


5

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

District of Columbia local government to both houses of Congress pursuant to the

District of ColumbiaHome Rule Act. (D.C. Act 13-138; Nov., 1998).

25. D.C. Act 13-138 became D.C. Law 13-315 on February 25, 2010, and is

published at 57 DCR 3360.

26. In May, 2010, D.C. Law 18-210, theLegalization of Marijuana for Medica

Treatment Amendment Act, included proposed amendments to D.C. Law 13-315 and was

approved unanimously by the District of Columbia City Council. On May 21, 2010, the

Mayor of the District of Columbia signed the law which was then assigned D.C. Act No.

18-429. Thereafter, D.C. Act No 18-429 was transmitted to both houses of Congress and

became effective July 27, 2010. (Feb. 25, 2010, D.C. Law 13-315, 2, as added July 27

2010, D.C. Law 18-210, 2, 57 DCR 4798.) After passage, the District law was codified

at DC ST 7-1671, et. seq.

27. On December 2, 2011, the District of Columbia promulgated fina

rulemaking for DC ST 7-1671 and the laws implementing regulations. (See D.C. Reg.

22-C1 through 22-C200, Notice of Final Rulemaking published at 58 DCR 10128

10137.)

28. Plaintiff Marla James suffers from, among other ailments, necrotizing

fasciitis removal, diabetes, and blindness. Plaintiff JAMES is wheelchair bound. Opiate-

based drugs cause her to suffer debilitating side effects. Accordingly, her licensed doctor

recommended medical cannabis for her.

29. Plaintiff JAMES is a patient member of medical cannabis patien

collectives in the City of Costa Mesa, California. The collectives that Plaintiff JAMES is

a member of operate in full conformance with California law and regulations including,

but not limited to, the CUA and MMPA. Furthermore, the collectives Plaintiff JAMES is

a member of consist of groups of seriously ill, disabled, and injured patients who are

mutual beneficiaries of and participants in the collective operation.

30. In April, 2010, Plaintiff JAMES, along with three other disabled

individuals, filed suit in U.S. District Court against Defendant cities COSTA MESA and


6/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


6

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

LAKE FOREST seeking relief under Title 2 of 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). (James, et. al. v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., (2010) No

SACV10-00402 AG (MLGx).) In their complaint, the disabled Plaintiffs alleged that the

complete ban of and related actions to eliminate medical marijuana collectives by the

Defendant cities impermissibly violated applicable provisions of theADA.

31. After filing suit, the disabled Plaintiffs sought an order from the District

Court enjoining the Defendant cities from enforcing their respective bans of medical

marijuana collectives and from engaging in police or civil actions to force closure of

patient collectives.

32. In May, 2010, the District Court denied the preliminary injunction

requested by the disabled Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the

injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Marla James, et al. v. City of

Costa Mesa, et al., (2010) No. 10-55769.)

33. On January 18, 2012, the United States Attorney for the Central District of

California issued letters to patient collectives in Costa Mesa, California, including, but

not limited to, the patient collectives that Plaintiff JAMES is a member of. In the letters

the U.S. Attorney states that there is no medical marijuana under federal law, orders the

collectives to cease and desist, and provides that civil or criminal action will be taken if

the groups do not stop all marijuana activities.

34. After receiving the letters from the United States Attorney, the collectives

that Plaintiff JAMES is a member of in Costa Mesa stopped operating.

35. Plaintiff ALDRICH is registered to vote and lives in the city of Long

Beach, California. In March, 2010, the City Council of Long Beach passed an ordinance

permitting and regulating medical marijuana collectives.

36. In May, 2011, Plaintiff PAPPAS was critically injured in an assault while

visiting the State of Nevada. Plaintiff PAPPAS underwent emergency brain surgery

following the assault and was placed in a hospital critical care unit for several weeks

while in a coma.


7/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


7

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

37. In June, 2011, Plaintiff PAPPAS, while recovering from brain surgery and

the injuries she suffered as a result of being assaulted, used an opiate based pain

medication prescribed by her doctor. After a period of use of the opiate based

medication, Plaintiff PAPPAS suffered side-effects and discomfort related to the opiate

medicine. She also felt that she was becoming dependent on the opiate drug.

38. Instead of seeking a prescription refill of the opiate medication, Plaintiff

PAPPAS instead used medical cannabis recommended by her doctor and that she

obtained from medical marijuana patient collectives in Lake Forest, California and

subsequently obtained from collectives in Long Beach, California. Plaintiff PAPPAS

continues to periodically use medical cannabis as she recovers from the severe and life-

threatening injuries she suffered in May, 2011.

39. In or around October, 2011, the United States Attorney for the Centra

District of California issued letters to patient collectives in Lake Forest, California,

including, but not limited to, the patient collectives that Plaintiff PAPPAS obtained

medication through via her authorized caregiver. In the letters, the U.S. Attorney states

that there is no medical marijuana under federal law, orders the collectives to cease and

desist, and provides that civil or criminal action will be taken if the groups do not stop all

marijuana activities.

40. After receiving the letters from the United States Attorney, the collectives

that Plaintiff PAPPAS obtained her medication through in Lake Forest, California

stopped operating.

41. After losing access to the patient collectives in Lake Forest, California

Plaintiff PAPPAS became a member of medical marijuana patient collectives in the City

of Long Beach, California.

42. Plaintiff ALDRICH is a designated personal caregiver for Plaintiff

PAPPAS and has provided regular assistance in her recovery since the May, 2011 assault

Plaintiff ALDRICH participates in the collective process provided under California law

as part of her caregiver activities for Plaintiff PAPPAS.


8/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


8

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

43. On October 4, 2011, regulations permitting and governing the operation of

medical marijuana patient collectives in the city of Long Beach were deemed preempted

by federal law by a California appeals court.

44. On February 14, 2012, the Long Beach, California City Council, in

response to the appellate court decision striking parts of its medical marijuana permit law

enacted a total ban of all medical marijuana patient collectives in the city of Long Beach.

45. On February 16, 2012, the patient collective that plaintiff PAPPAS is a

member of received a cease and desist letter from the City of Long Beach. Loss of

medication access by PAPPAS and through her authorized personal caregiver ALDRICH

is now directly threatened by the closure of all collectives in Long Beach, California.

46. Plaintiff JAMES is informed and believes, and based upon such

information and belief alleges, that in or around November, 2011, the Mayor of

Defendant COSTA MESA contacted representatives of Defendant UNITED STATES

and asked the UNITED STATES to send letters to the patient collectives in that city

ordering the collectives to shut-down.

47. Plaintiff PAPPAS is informed and believes, and based upon such

information and belief alleges, that in or around September, 2011, officials and

representatives of Defendant LAKE FOREST contacted representatives of Defendant

UNITED STATES and asked the UNITED STATES to send letters to patient collectives

in that city ordering the collectives to shut-down.

48. On January 26, 2012, the plaintiffs in James, et al. v. Costa Mesa, et al.

supra, filed an F.R.A.P. Rule 27-3 Emergency Motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals seeking to enjoin the UNITED STATES from threatening to close and then

closing, through civil or criminal action, patient collectives in the City of Costa Mesa

The Ninth Circuit denied the motion finding it did not have jurisdiction over the UNITED

STATES in that case. The Court further ordered that the plaintiffs could file a separate

action in U.S. District Court naming the UNITED STATES as a defendant.

//


9/29


10/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


10

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

SECOND CLAIM

(DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ONLY)

Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

(Fundamental Right to Vote)

53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint.

54. When it enacted P.L. 111-117 in December, 2009, the UNITED STATES

allowed the citizens of the District to conduct and implement a referendum on

Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment.

55. The citizens of Washington D.C. included DC ST 7-1671.06(a) in the Act

which provides that medical marijuana dispensaries are authorized to provide medical

marijuana to qualified patients.

56. The citizens of Washington D.C. included DC ST 7-1671.06(b) in the Act

which provides that medical marijuana cultivation centers are authorized to grow medical

marijuana and distribute it to authorized Washington D.C. dispensaries.

57. Congress did not author the Legalization of Marijuana for Medica

Treatment act voted on and approved by Washington D.C. voters. Rather, it gave the

voters of Washington D.C. the right to conduct a referendum (vote) and thereafter

implement the District authored law.

58. Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and is the federa

legislature. While it may take action that is different and distinct for the District of

Columbia, its actions are always constrained by and subject to the requirements of the

United States Constitution. The right to vote is fundamental and subject to strict scrutiny

analysis for purposes of equal protection.

59. California voters approved medical marijuana use, possession, and personal

cultivation in 1996. The California Legislature approved medical marijuana cultivation

distribution, transportation, and storage in 2003.

60. On January 18, 2012, the UNITED STATES sent letters to the collectives

that Plaintiff James is a member of in the City of Costa Mesa providing that all marijuana

is illegal under federal law and stating specifically that, United States law takes


11/29


12/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


12

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

disenfranchise Washington D.C. voters. Hence, Californians are not equally protected

under the law and insofar as those federal provisions operate unequally, they are

unenforceable and constitutionally invalid. Moreover, the operation of federal law that is

not applicable in Washington D.C. has operated to invalidate and take away all effect of

the vote of ALDRICH and her elected city government representatives in the City of

Long Beach by preempting that citys law that sought to permit medical marijuana

collectives operating in full compliance with California law.

65. To the extent Washington D.C. citizens were granted the right to vote-on

and approve medical marijuana laws not subject to art. 6, cl. 2 preemption because the

federal District is not a state and because Congress removed its art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17

prohibition, the medical marijuana laws Congress allowed the voters of Washington D.C

to vote-on and approve are defenses to general federal law, including the federal

Controlled Substances Actin the federal District. The claim by the UNITED STATES in

its January 18, 2012 letters providing state medical marijuana laws are not defenses to

federal law are improper because the voters of California must be equally protected under

the law. Likewise, the claims by federal authorities that there is no medical marijuana

under federal law are improper and without basis. Accordingly, in the same way voter

approved medical marijuana provisions in Washington D.C. operate to protect citizens in

the federal District, similar state laws operate as defenses for state citizens.

THIRD CLAIM



(Rational Basis)

66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-48 and paragraphs 54-57 of this

Complaint.

67. Congress allowed the District of Columbia to conduct and implement and

referendum onLegalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law as has been done

in several states.


13/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


13

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

68. The District of Columbia is not a state. Congress has plenary power over

the District. District laws are not subject to art. 6, cl. 2 Supremacy Clause preemption

because: 1) the District is not a state; and 2) its legislature is Congress, a branch of the

federal sovereign.

69. The federal Controlled Substances Act deems marijuana has no medical

value.

70. District citizens are protected from federal Controlled Substances Act

violations when in full compliance with DC ST 7-1671, et seq., the Districts medical

marijuana legalization law. Congress knowingly allowed the District to vote-on and

implement its medical marijuana law. It recognized medical marijuana and the medica

value of marijuana when it approved the Districts laws under P.L. 111-117 and then

through itsHome Rule Actpowers. On the other hand, California citizens, as evidenced

by the January 18, 2012 letters from the UNITED STATES, are not protected. Contrary

to Congresss position in Washington D.C. where there is medical marijuana, the

UNITED STATES January 18, 2012 letters provide that there is no medical marijuana

in the State of California under federal law.

71. There is no rational basis for deeming marijuana medically useful in the

District of Columbia and not medically useful in California. Additionally, Congress

made no such explicit determination.

72. There is no rational basis for determining that marijuana can have medica

value in Washington D.C. but not in California. Additionally, Congress made no such

explicit determination.

73. There is no rational basis for allowing the District of Columbia to conduct

and implement a referendum on legalization of medical marijuana in-part based on the

fact that several states had medical marijuana laws and then to withhold protection from

state voters under their laws.

74. There is no rational basis for the United States to protect District of

Columbia citizens under the CSA differently than it protects California citizens.


14/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


14

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

FOURTH CLAIM



(Rational Basis)


Complaint.

76. Unlike Washington D.C., the City of Long Beach is unable to include

medical marijuana authorization and permitting provisions in its City law because

citizens of Long Beach are treated differently under the law than citizens of Washington

D.C. Namely, while the District of Columbias laws are not subject to preemption by the

CSA, Long Beachs laws are.

77. Congress allowed the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote-on and

implement medical marijuana legalization, regulation, and permitting laws when it

enacted P.L. 111-117 in December, 2009. On the other hand, it has prevented Long

Beach from doing the same.

78. Medical marijuana patients in Washington D.C. are protected from CSA

liability through DC ST 7-1671, et seq., the Districts medical marijuana law. Long

Beach medical marijuana patients are not protected from CSA liability through either

California or Long Beach law.

79. Plaintiff PAPPAS has been adversely affected by the different and adverse

treatment of the patient collectives she is a member of in Long Beach because those

collectives have been ordered to shut-down based on federal preemption.

80. Plaintiff ALDRICH has been treated differently than voters in Washington

D.C. because her elected representatives are unable to vote on regulations, permits, and

controls on medical marijuana as a result of federal preemption.

81. There is no rational basis for the different and reduced protection provided

for ALDRICH and PAPPAS under the law.

//


15/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


15

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

FIFTH CLAIM

(DEFENDANTS COSTA MESA AND LAKE FOREST ONLY)

42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)


Complaint.

83. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patient

collectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE

FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES, WASHINGTON, DeJONG, and

PAPPAS of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law in contravention of

the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

84. By requesting that Defendant UNITED STATES order shutdown of patientcollectives within their respective cities, Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE

FOREST have acted to deprive Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS of their constitutional

right to equal protection under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution.




right to due process in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

SIXTH CLAIM

(DEFENDANTS COSTA MESA AND LAKE FOREST ONLY)

42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)


Complaint.





16/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


16

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

right to equal protection under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution.




right to substantive due process under the law in contravention of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.




right to procedural due process in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution.

SEVENTH CLAIM

(DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES AND COSTA MESA)

(42 U.S.C. 1983, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, as to Costa Mesa)

(Fifth Amendment, Due Process, as to United States)


Complaint.

91. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and

belief allege that Defendants COSTA MESA and UNITED STATES acted in concert

with each other in sending the aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters to collectives

in Costa Mesa.

92. Under California law, patient collectives are non-profit entities consisting

of their individual patient members. Plaintiff JAMES is a member of Costa Mesa

collectives that received letters in Costa Mesa, California.

93. The aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in

Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for the collectives or its

respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or defend against criminal


17/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


17

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

civil, and property taking charges or demands for immediate closure included in the

letters. Accordingly, as to defendant UNITED STATES, the letters impermissibly violate

the procedural due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

94. The aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in

Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for the collectives or their

respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or defend against the

UNITED STATES demand for immediate closure. The collectives, including their

respective patient members, including Plaintiff JAMES, have a property right and interest

in the improved real property locations of the patient collectives groups. Accordingly, as

to defendant UNITED STATES, the letters impermissibly violate the takings provisions

of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

95. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and

belief allege that the aforementioned closure and forfeiture letters sent to collectives in

Costa Mesa were requested by Defendant COSTA MESA. The closure and forfeiture

letters sent to collectives in Costa Mesa that JAMES is a member of provided no basis for

the collectives or its respective patient members to be heard on, answer, address, or

defend criminal, civil, and property taking charges or demands for immediate closure

Accordingly, as to defendant COSTA MESA, the letters impermissibly violate the

procedural due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

EIGHTH CLAIM

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

96. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-95 of this Complaint.

97. As a direct result of the UNITED STATES actions as well as threatened

actions, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. The patient

collectives that disabled Plaintiffs JAMES and PAPPAS are members of in Lake Forest

and Costa Mesa have been closed. Both disabled Plaintiffs are severely restricted from or

unable to access medication through the collective process and are suffering. Both

Plaintiffs must now travel outside of the cities they live in to access medication. The


18/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


18

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

patient collectives that PAPPAS now travels to are approximately sixty miles round-trip

for her. Moreover, the patient collectives in Long Beach have now been ordered to close

because of a court decision finding that the permitting provisions of that citys law were

federally preempted.

98. Not only have and will plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury, Plaintiffs have no

plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, thereby rendering declaratory relief and

preliminary and permanent injunctions appropriate. Money damages will not adequately

compensate Plaintiffs for the denial of their constitutional rights and civil liberties and if

defendants are not enjoined, a multiplicity of lawsuits will be required because Defendant

UNITED STATES unlawful conduct is continuous and ongoing and not only affects

Plaintiffs but other citizens similarly situated. Also, the denial of access to medication

has been deemed irreparable harm by federal courts. The denial of access to medication

and the resulting damage to the Plaintiffs cannot be adequately remedied through

pecuniary compensation.

99. The UNITED STATES has no rational basis for claiming it will be

adversely affected by any injunctive relief against it in this case because it has: 1)

allowed medical marijuana in Washington D.C.; 2) recognized medical marijuana; and

3) acknowledged state medical marijuana laws when allowing medical marijuana in the

District of Columbia.

100. The UNITED STATES has no basis for denying the Plaintiffs fundamenta

right to vote-on and enact medical marijuana legalization. The fundamental right to vote

was taken from Plaintiff ALDRICH when the City of Long Beachs medical marijuana

permitting and regulating law was deemed invalid because it was preempted by the

federal CSA in October, 2011 and thereafter repealed by that citys governing legislature

Unlike District of Columbia citizens, Plaintiffs ALDRICH, PAPPAS, and JAMES are

being denied the fundamental right to vote to legalize medical marijuana. Medica

marijuana legalization been proposed in California legislation and ballot initiatives

previously. However, like ALDRICH and other citizens in Long Beach who had their


19/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


19

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

medical marijuana law deemed federally preempted and then repealed because of

preemption, proposed state medical marijuana legalization proposals cannot be voted-on

or implemented by California or its cities because those laws have not, until now, been

able to survive federal preemption analysis. By giving the right to conduct and

implement their law on legalization of medical marijuana, Congress gave to voters in the

District of Columbia a right it has withheld from state voters. While Congress may create

different laws, regulations, and rights for the District of Columbia, it may not do so in

contravention of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed thereunder.

By denying Plaintiffs ALDRICH, PAPPAS, and JAMES equal protection of its laws in

respect to their fundamental right to vote, the UNITED STATES is violating the

Constitutions guarantees of substantive and procedural due process as well as equal

protection. The letters sent by the UNITED STATES to collectives in Costa Mesa and

Lake Forest make clear the UNITED STATES denial of equal protection under the law.

Such denial has caused and will continue to cause severe and irreparable harm to

ALDRICH, JAMES, and PAPPAS. It has and will cause severe and irreparable harm to

all California voters.

101. Given the allegations contained in this Complaint, Plaintiffs are likely to

prevail on the merits. Furthermore, the hardship to the UNITED STATES is minima

when balanced against the harm the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer. The

UNITED STATES has no rational basis for asserting marijuana has any more medical

benefit for seriously ill patients in Washington D.C. than it does for seriously ill patients

in California.

102. The UNITED STATES and defendant HOLDER should be ENJOINED

from asserting the CSA in a manner that disenfranchises state voters. The UNITED

STATES and defendant HOLDER should be ENJOINED from asserting the CSA in a

manner that prevents state citizens from raising full compliance with state medical

marijuana laws as a defense to the CSA. The UNITED STATES and defendant

HOLDER should be ENJOINED from denying that federal law recognizes state


20/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


20

LAWO

F

FICEOFMATTHEWP

APPAS

22641LAKEFORESTDR.,

#B5-107

LAKEF

OREST,

CA

92630(949)382-1485

medical marijuana laws. The UNITED STATES and HOLDER should be ENJOINED

from ordering closure of California medical marijuana collectives that operate in full

compliance with California law.

103. Defendants COSTA MESA and LAKE FOREST should be ENJOINED

from seeking to use federal law as the sole basis for closure of patient collectives

operating in full compliance with California medical marijuana laws. Defendants

COSTA MESA and LAKE FOREST should be ENJOINED from eliciting letters from

the UNITED STATES ordering closure of medical marijuana collectives in those

California cities based on claims that there is no medical marijuana under federal law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following:

A. For the declaratory relief requested in this Complaint;

B. For the injunctive relief requested in this Complaint including, but not

limited to, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent

injunction;

C. For damages in an amount to be proven at time of trial;

D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees;

E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit; and

F. Such other and further relief the Court deems proper.

DATED: __________________

______________________________________

MATTHEW PAPPASAttorney for Plaintiffs

2-22-2012


21/29


22/29


23/29


24/29

UNITED STATE: " ~ R J c r COURT, CENTRAL. DISTRiCtC IVIL CO VE R SIIEE T

1 (a) PLA INTIF FS (Ch:1i: boil if you arc rep=cnling yoursc:lrO) DEFE", DANTSMARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRICH; and VlcroRiA PAPPAS UNITED STATES Of AMERICA; C ITY OF COSTA MF.5A.CALIfORNIA;

CIn ' OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in bis c.pICityas A I ~ oflhe U o . i t S " t U : ' " O '

(b) Anomc:ys (Finn Name:, and Tdephone Number. If you an: rqm:senting)'\lUrKlf. provide s.amc.)MArn-tEW PAPPAS (SHN: 11(860). C IIARLES M. FARANO(SBN : 869 IS),DAVIO R. WELOI (SON: 2S1693). 2264 1 LAKE FOREST DRIVE. IIOSI 07lAKE FOREST, CA 92630, (9-19) 3&21485

Anomeys (I f Known)

II. BASIS OF J URJSDlCT ION (Plxe an X in one boil only,) Uf. C ITIZNSIllP OF PR INCIPAL PARTIES For Diversity Cases Only(Place an X in one boil fOt plainliffand one for dcfendanL)

o I U,S, OOVCTTll11ellt Plaintiff 0 3 Fedc:ral Questioo (U .S. PT' 0" PTF DO'Govcm_nt Not a Party) Citi zen of This Stille 0' 0 ' Incorporated or Principal PIa u D. O.ofBU5iness in !his Scaterl2 U,S, Govcmmcnt Defendant 0 " Diversity (Indiule Citizenship Ci!izcn of Anotha ' StatC 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 0' 0 'of Parties in Item 1II) ofBU5iness in Another State

Ci tizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 0 3 03 Foreign Nation 0 6 06IV. OR IG IN (Place an X in one b o ~ only.)rt l Original

Proceoding 02 Removed fromState Coon 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Re instated orR'"1""'" o 5 T ~ f c r r c d from anomer dis!ric:t (specify): 0 6 MultiDiSIrK:ILitigationo 7 Appeal 10 District

Judge fromMagistrate JudgeAppellate Coun

V. REQ UESTED IN CO ;l.t PI,AINT : JURV DEM AND: 0 Yes !{ No(a.eck 'Yes' only ifdemalldcd incomplainL)C1...ASS ACTION . .-dff F.R.C,P. 23: 0 Ya rlNo o MO NEY DEMANDED IN CO MPl.AlNT: SVI. CAUSE OJ ' ACTION (Cite the U.S. C ivi l Statute under which you are filing.nd write a brief stalCmtnt ofcausc. Do not ei te juri.Jd.idional SWUtc5 uclu.sdiveQity.)

fiFTH AND FOURTEEr-mi AMENDMENTS, U.S. CONSTITlfIlON; 42 U.S.C. S. 19&3VII NATURE OF SUIT (Place X til Ollf bOl oaly )

OntER STAroms CONTRACT TORTI> TO"" PRISONER LAllOR0400 SUite Reapportionment 0 110 PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL PETITIONS DnO fair Labor Scandards0410 Antitnl.!l 01 20 Marine 0310 Airplane PROPERTY OS lO Motiontio Aa0430 Banb and Banking o no MillerAa o 31 S Airplane ProdI,W;l 0370 Otb:r fraud Vacate Sentence 0" LaborlMgrnL0 . ' " Comm=IICC 0'" Negotiable Il\SlJ1lI1lCIIt Liability 0 )7 1 Truth in Lcnd.ina Habeas Corpus Re illions

R a t e s l ~ o ISO Reco\'ery of 0120 Assault. Libel &: 0380 Otha' Pcnonal 0'" C n l . 1 0730 LaOOJlMgrnL0 '" DcporWion ~ r p t ; y r r w : n &: 5 . . . . Property DamItIc OBS Death PCllllty Reporting&:0 470 R.acli:eteu Influenced EnrotUment or 03 , . fed. Employcn:' 0385 Property Damage O l . Mandamus! Disclomrc Ac tand Corrupt Judgment Liability Product Liability "",,, 0740 RailWllY Labor AaOrglllliutions 0151 Mcdio;:arc Act 0 " " M.m. BANKRUPTCY 0550 Civ il Righlll o 190 Other Labor0 480 Consumer Credit o IS2 Recovery of Defaulted 0 '" Marine ProdI,W;l 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 0555 Prison Conditioo Litig8l:ionLiability0490 CablclSat TV StU&nl Loan ( E ~ e l . 0 3 " Motor Vehicle '" fORFErrURE J 0191 Empl. Ret. Inc.0810 Selective Service Vetel"llU) 0355 Motor Vehicle 0 42) Withdrawal 28 PgNALTY Security Acto SSG Set:u ritics/Commoditiesl 0153 Recovery of ProdUCI Liability USC 157 Q 610 Agri


25/29

UN ITED STATEt '- R J C T COURT, CENTRAL DlST RJ ClC IVrL CO VER SHEE T

UFORNIA

IDEfIoTICA L CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this coun and dismissed, remanded orclO!;Cd? II'No 0 Yeslisl case numbcJ1s):__________________________________________________RELATED CASES: Have lilly cases been previously filed in this coun thai arc related 10 the presenl case? 0 No r iY esnumbcr(s): SACV 1000402 AG (MLGx)

cases Ir e deemed rellted if I pr evious ly fil ed elSe I nd the pr ese nt use :all bo)(es thai apply) A. Arise from the same: or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or

'iiiB. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; orI i . For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; oro D. Involve the same palent, lrademark or copyright,!ill! one of the faclors identified above in a, b or c also is present.

(When completi ng the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)List Ihe County in this District; California County outsidc of this Districl; Stale if other than California: or Foreign Country, in which EACII named plaintiff resides.Check here if the governmenl, its agencies or employees is a named plainliff. Iflhis box is checked, go to item (b).

in this District: California County outside of this District; State, i f other than C. lifornia: or Foreign CountryCOUNTY (JAMES); ORANGE COUNTY (PAPPAS); LOS

LES COUNTY (A LDRICH)

List the County in this District; California County outside o flhis Districr; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides.Check here if he J:ovemment, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. Irthis bolt is checked, J:O to item (c).in this District: California Counly outside of Ibis District; Stale, if other than California; or Foreign Country

List the Coun ty in this Disl1ict; California County outside ofthi5 District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.No te' 10 laod condemnation cases use the locatioo of the tract of la nd involved

in IhU District: California County outside of this District; State, ifother than California; or Foreign Counl!)'( 1S1); ORANGE & L.A. COUNTY (2ND):(3RO); L.A. COUNTY (4TH); ORANGE COUNTY

7TH): ORANGE & L.A. COUNTY (8TH )Angeles, Or aoge, Sa n Ber nlrdino, Riverside, Ven tu ra ,In land condemnation eases 1l.'IC the location of lract a

a nta Barbal'l, or San Luis Obispo Countiesd involved

F AITQRNEY (OR PRO PER): _ k ~ = J ; , A l L l , = = = = - _____ D.te __' Z . = - ' - - = _ = = _ _______Notice to Coun selfPll rties: The CV? I (15..44) Civil Cover Shetland the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the fil ing and service ofplcadingsor other papersas required by law. This form, approved bythdudicial Conference of the United. StatCli in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 31 iSDOI filedbut is used by the Clerk oftheCoun for the purpose of statistics, venue and initialing the civil docket shee t. (Formore detailed insJructi ons, see $CpIJ1Ite insJructions sheet.)

Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:Na tu re of Suit Code Abbreviation

861 HIA

862 BL

863 DlWC

863 Dl WW

864 SSlD,., . SI(05108)

Statement of Ca use of Action

All claims for health ins urance benefits (Medicare) under Tide 18, Part A. of the Social Security Act, as amended.AIIlO, include claims by hospitals, ski lled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers ofserv iees under theprogram. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(bAll claims for Lung" beoofits under Tille 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.(30 U.s.C. 923)An claims filed by insured won:ers for disability insurance bene fi ts under Title 2 of he Social Security Act, asamended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefilS based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(gAll claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 oflbe Social SecurityAct, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(gAll claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Ti lle 16 of he Social SecurityAct, as amendedAll claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 or lhe Social Security Act, as IIIlICndcd (42U.S.C.(g

C IVIL CO VER SHEET Page 2 o


26/29

Name & Address:MATrHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 86915)DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5-107LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRICH; andVICTORIA PAPPAS,

PLAINTIFF(S)v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF COSTAMESA, CALLFORNlA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALLFORNlA; and ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity asAttorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT(S) .

CASE NUMBERSACV12 -00280 JVS (RNax)

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): UNITED STATES OF AMERICAA lawsuit has been filed against you.Within 60 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), youmust serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 00 complaint 0 amended complainto counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is22641 LAKE FOREST DR . #B5-107. LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,judgment by default will be entered against you for the rel ief demanded in the complaint. You also must fileyour answer or motion with the court.

Clerk, U.S. District Court22 2012Dated: __________ AM.YDeAVilABy:__________

Deputy Clerk(Seal o f he Court)

(Use 60 days if he defendant is the United States or a United Stales agency. or is an officer or employee of he United Slales. Al lowed60 day, by Rule 12(a)(3)].

CV..(lIA (10111 SUMMONS


27/29

Name & Add ress:MATTHEW PAPPAS (S BN : 171 860)CHARL ES FA RANO (SBN: 869 15)DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 LAKE FOREST DR ., #B5- 107LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]

UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAL IFORNIAMARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRJCH; and

VICTORlA PAPPAS,PLA rNTIFF(S)

v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; C ITY OF COSTAMESA, CA LIFORNLA; C ITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALI FORNIA; and ERIC HOLDER, in hi s capacity asAttorney Genera l of the United States, DEFENDANT(S).

CASE NUMBER

SUMMONS

TO: DEFE DA NT(S): CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CA LIFORNIAA lawsuit has been filed against you.Within 30 days after service of this summ ons on you (not counting the day you received it), you

mu st serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 1K I comp laint 0 amended comp lainto counterclaim 0 cross-cl aim or a mot ion under Ru le 12 of the Federa l Rules ofCivil Procedure . The answeror motion mu st be served on the plaintiff's attorney , MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is2264 1 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5 -107, LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also mu st fileyour answer or motion with the court .

Clerk, U.S. Di strict Court

Dated:____ .......-",--'''"0___ _ By:_ _ _ _ M_YDe_V_LA___Deputy Clerk

(Seal of ile COllrt)

[Use 60 days if he deJendom is the U,/ired Slates or a Uni red States agency. or is an officer or employee of he Unired States. Allowed60 days by Rille 12(a)(J)).

CV-OIA (10/11 SUMM ONS


28/29

Name & Addr ess:MATTH EW PAPPAS (SBN: 171 860)CHARLES FARANO (SBN: 869 15)DAVID WELCH (SBN : 251693)22641 LAKE FO REST DR. , #B5-107LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949)382-1 485]

UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARLA JAMES ; KATHERINE ALDRlCH; and

VICTORlA PAPPAS ,PLAINTIFF(S)v.

UN ITED STATES OF AMERI CA; CITY OF COSTAMESA, CA LIFORNIA; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALI FORN IA; and ERIC HOLDER, in his capacity asAttorney General of the United States, DEFENDANT{S).

CASE NUMBER

SJ\CVI2-00280 JVS lRNBx)

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIAA lawsuit has been filed aga inst you.Within 30 days after service of thi s summons o n you (not count ing the day you received it), you

must serve on the plaint itT an answer to the attached 00 complai nt 0 amended complainto counterclaim 0 cross-cla im or a motion under Rul e 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answeror motion mu st be served on the plaintiff's anomey, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is22641 LAKE FOREST DR .. #B5-107, LAKE FOREST. CA 22630 . If you fail to do so ,

judgmen t by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also mu st fileyour answer or motion w ith the court .

Clerk, U.S. Di strict Court

Dated: _____,_--'-W'-___ AMYDeAVLABy: __________Deputy Clerk

(Seal of the Co urt)

[Use 60 days if he defendalll is the United States or a United Stales agency. or is an officer or employee of Ihe United Stales. Allowed60 days by Rule 11(0)(3)].

CV..(l IA { IO/ll SUMMONS


29/29

Name & Address:MATTHEW PAPPAS (SBN : 171 860)CHARLES FARANO (S BN : 86915)DAVID WELCH (SBN: 251693)22641 LAKE FOREST DR ., #B5-1 07LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 [(949) 382-1485]

UNITED STATES DI STRI CT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARLA JAMES; KATHERINE ALDRJCH; and

VICTORIA PAPPAS,PLAINTIFF(S)v.

UN ITED STATES OF AMERICA; CITY OF COSTAMESA, CALIFORN IA ; CITY OF LAKE FOREST,CALIFORNIA ; and ERIC HOLDER, in hi s capacity as

DEFENDANT(S).

TO: DEFENDANT(S): ERJC HOLDERA lawsuit ha s been filed against you.

CASE NUMBERSACV12-00280 ,VS (RNBx)

SUMMONS

Within 60 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), youmust serve on the plaintiff an answer to the anached 4EI complaint 0 amended complainto counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure. Th e answeror motion mu st be served on the plaintiff' s anomey, MATTHEW PAPPAS , whose address is22641 LAKE FOREST DR., #B5-107, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 . If you fail to do so,judgment by default wi ll be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must fileyour answer or motion with the court.

Clerk, U.S. District CourtH 20frDated:__________ By :_ _ --c:-A_M_Y...,De::-A...,VI_lA___

Deputy Clerk(Seal of he COllrl)

{Use 60 days if he defendant is Ille Uniled Siaies or a Uniled Stales agency, or is an officer or employee o f he Uniled SlaiCS. Allowed60 days by Rille Il(a)(3)j.

Documents

g Sacv12 00280 Jamesvus Complaint