|
|
|
Important Documents The Complaint WAMM Order (.pdf) Motion for Preliminary Injunction Judicial Notice Request WAMM Protocols and Guidelines |
|
|
Meet the Plaintiffs Their Declarations
|
|
|
Supportive Pleadings
|
|
Media
Contact <page 22>
1 Proposition 215 and Arizona Proposition 200," a policy released on December 30, 1996 by the
2 former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy ("ONDCP"), the predecessor to
3 defendant Walters. The federal policy was promulgated by an interagency working group that
4 included, among other agencies, the ONDCP, the DEA, and the Department of Justice. One of
5 the objectives that the federal task force outlined in its "Response" was to encourage state and
6 local law enforcement officials to continue to continue to make arrests and seizures under state
7 drug laws, leaving defendants to raise the Compassionate Use Act only as a defense to state
8 prosecution.
9 87. Without access to medical marijuana, many of the Plaintiffs suffer serious
10 medical consequences. They rely upon medical marijuana to, among other things, control
11 seizures and severe pain, stimulate appetite to avoid the "wasting syndrome" that afflicts AIDS
12 patients, and control nausea caused by cancer treatments. Many of the Plaintiffs are terminally
13 ill and will die more painful deaths without access to medical marijuana. Since the raid, 15
14 WAMM members have died.
15 88. In addition to the Compassionate Use Act, California has enacted other
16 laws directed at pain management. for seriously ill patients. In 1990, the Legislature enacted the
17 Intractable Pain Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2241.5, which exempts from disciplinary action a
18 physician or surgeon who prescribes or administers controlled substances for treatment of a
19 person suffering from intractable pain. In 1997, the Legislature enacted the Pain Patient's Bill of
20 Rights, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 124960-124961, which provides that "[a] patient suffering
21 from severe chronic intractable pain has the option to request or reject the use of any or all
22 modalities in order to relieve his or her severe chronic intractable pain." Cal. Health & Safety
23 Code § 124961(a). This includes the use of physician-prescribed opiate medications. Cal.
24 Health & Safety Code §§ 124960(g), (h), and (i). In enacting the Pain Patient's Bill of Rights,
25 the Legislature recognized that "[i]nadequate treatment of acute and chronic pain originating
26 from cancer or noncancerous conditions is a significant health problem." Cal. Health & Safety
27 Code § 124960(b). An analysis that accompanied the Legislature's third reading of Senate Bill
28 402, which enacted the Pain Patient's Bill of Rights, indicates that the legislature intended to
COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
22
21500440.1/2096001-2960011334
1 create a positive legal duty to treat pain and suffering effectively. The bill analysis also indicates
2 that one of the Legislature's goals in enacting the Pain Patient's Bill of Rights was to express
3 "[t]hat treatment for severe, chronic, intractable pain is a fundamental human right."
4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Injunctive And Declaratory Relief For Deprivation
6 Of The Fundamental Right To Control
7 89 The Circumstances Of One's Own Death)
10 89. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88.
11 90. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiffs and
the Defendants.
12 91. The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment protects unenumerated
13 liberties from federal intrusion if they are fundamental rights. The Ninth Amendment also
14 protects unenumerated liberties, stating, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
15 shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
16 92. The DEA's seizure of medical marijuana violated the WAMM patient
17 Plaintiffs' fundamental right to control the circumstances of their own deaths.
18 93. Without medical marijuana, the Plaintiffs will suffer unnecessary pain,
19 seizures, and, in some cases, untimely and more painful deaths. The right to control the
20 circumstances of one's own death is "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"' and
21 "'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"' such that "'neither liberty nor justice would exist"'
22 if it were sacrificed. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (quoting Moore v.
23 City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 326
24 (1937), overruled on other grounds, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 (1969)). "Avoiding
25 intolerable pain and the indignity of living one's final days incapacitated and in agony is
26 certainly `at the heart of [the] liberty... to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the 27 universe, and of the mystery of human life."' Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 745 (Stevens, J., concurring) 28 (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)).
COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
23
21500440.1/2096001-2960011334
1 94. The use of marijuana for medical purposes is also deeply ingrained in this
2 nation's history and tradition. Under common law, use of medical cannabis was not proscribed.
3 When the original 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights, cannabis was in use as a medicine.
4 Indeed, until 1941, cannabis was indicated for numerous medical conditions in the
5 pharmacopoeia of the United States. This nation's long, historical tradition of liberty concerning
6 the use of medical marijuana contrasts sharply with the relatively recent assertion of federal
7 power to restrict the use of marijuana. The first federal restriction on the sale of marijuana did
8 not appear until almost the middle of the 20th Century, in the form of the Marihuana Tax of
9 1937.
10 95. The Plaintiffs desire a judicial declaration that seizure of their medical
11 marijuana violates their fundamental right under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to control the
12 circumstances of their own deaths. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time
13 so that the Plaintiffs may implement and enjoy the protections of the duly enacted
14 Compassionate Use Act of 1996 free from federal intrusion. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
15 the Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration of their fundamental right to control the
16 circumstances of their own deaths.
17 96. The Plaintiffs also request injunctive relief protecting them against future
18 seizure of their medical marijuana. Without medical marijuana, the Plaintiffs will suffer
19 irreparable harm by being deprived of the ability to control the circumstances of their own
20 deaths. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. The DEA's ongoing policy of seizing
21 medical marijuana is a credible threat of actual harm to the Plaintiffs' Fifth and Ninth
22 Amendment rights.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Injunctive And Declaratory Relief For Violation Of
25 Other Fundamental Rights Secured By
The Fifth And Ninth Amendments)
26 97. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
27 paragraphs 1 through 96.
28. 98. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiffs and
COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
24
21500440.1/2096001-2960011334
1 the Defendants.
2 99. The DEA's seizure of medical marijuana violated the following
3 fundamental rights of the WAMM patient Plaintiffs, which are secured by the Fifth and Ninth 4 Amendments:
5 • the fundamental right to ameliorate pain;
6 • the fundamental right to maintain bodily integrity;
7 • the fundamental right to preserve life; and
8 • the fundamental right to consult with their physicians regarding treatment and
9 to act on the physicians' recommendations.
10 100. Each of these rights is "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and
11 tradition"' and "'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"' such that "'neither liberty nor justice
12 would exist"' if it were sacrificed. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)
13 (citations omitted).
14 101. Without medical marijuana, the Plaintiffs will suffer unnecessary pain,
15 seizures, and other severe medical consequences, depriving them of their fundamental rights.
16 "[A] patient who is suffering from a terminal illness and who is experiencing great pain has no
17 legal barriers to obtaining medication, from qualified physicians, to alleviate that suffering...."
18 Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 736-37 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
19 102. The California Legislature has secured the fundamental rights of patients
20 suffering from chronic, severe, intractable pain to maintain bodily integrity, ameliorate pain,
21 preserve life, and to consult with their physicians and act on the physicians' recommendations
22 through the Intractable Pain Law and the Pain Patient's Bill of Rights.
23 103. The Plaintiffs desire a judicial declaration that seizure of their medical
24 marijuana violates their fundamental rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to maintain
25 bodily integrity, to ameliorate pain, to preserve life, and to consult with their physicians
26 regarding treatment and to act on their physicians' recommendations. Such a declaration is
27 necessary and appropriate at this time so that the Plaintiffs may implement and enjoy the
28 protections of the duly enacted Compassionate Use Act of 1996 free from federal intrusion.
COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
25
21500440.1/2098001-2960011334
1 Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration of their
2 fundamental rights.
3 104. The Plaintiffs also request injunctive relief protecting them against future
4 seizure of their medical marijuana. Without medical marijuana, the Plaintiffs will suffer
5 irreparable harm in the form of unnecessary pain, seizures, and, in some cases, untimely and
6 more painful deaths. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. The DEA's ongoing policy
7 of seizing medical marijuana is a credible threat of actual harm to the Plaintiffs' Fifth and Ninth
8 Amendment rights.
9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (Injunctive And Declaratory Relief: Lack Of Federal Authority)
11 105. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
12 through 104.
13 106. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiffs and
14 the Defendants.
15. 107. The DEA's seizure of the Plaintiffs' medical marijuana exceeded
16 Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. The
17 DEA agents purported to act under color of the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.
18 §§ 801-971, which prohibits cultivation and possession of marijuana. That prohibition is based
19 upon Congress' authority to regulate commerce among the several states.
20 108. Under our dual system of sovereignty, when the State of California
21 exercises its police 21 power to regulate the health and safety of its citizens, Congress may not 22 interfere unless it demonstrates that the activity it seeks to regulate substantially affects interstate
23 commerce. Here, the Plaintiffs' cultivation and possession of medical marijuana took place
24 wholly within the borders of California and was in compliance with state law. WAMM patients
25 do not purchase their medical marijuana, nor do they sell or distribute marijuana to others.
26 Therefore, the Plaintiffs' wholly intrastate, non-economic activities are beyond the power of 27 Congress to regulate because they have no effect on interstate commerce.
28 109. Congress has made no finding that the intrastate cultivation and use of
COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
26
21500440.1/2096001-2960011334
Top <page 27>
1 medical marijuana by seriously ill patients with the approval of their physicians, as permitted by
2 California's Compassionate Use Act, has any effect whatsoever on interstate commerce. The
3 findings made by Congress with regard to the Controlled Substances Act address illicit drug use
4 generally, with no application to the discrete, limited class of activity authorized by California
5 law.
6 110. The Plaintiffs desire a judicial declaration that federal agents lack the
7 authority to seize medical marijuana that is cultivated, possessed, and used wholly within state
8 borders pursuant to state law and which the Plaintiffs do not purchase, sell, or distribute. Such a
9 declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the Plaintiffs may implement and
10 enjoy the protections of the duly enacted Compassionate Use Act of 1996 free from federal
11 intrusion. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Plaintiffs are entitled to such a judicial
12 declaration.
13 111. The Plaintiffs also desire injunctive relief protecting them from future
14 federal interference with California's implementation of the Compassionate Use Act. Federal
15 interference, which exceeds federal authority under the Commerce Clause, has caused and will
16 continue to cause the Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury to their Constitutional rights. They
17 have no adequate remedy at law. The Plaintiffs can show a credible threat of actual harm to their
18 Constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at least eight medical marijuana
19 raids by federal agents, including the WAMM raid, have taken place in California, and that these
20 raids are part of a federal policy of disrupting the lawful use of medical marijuana. Unless
21 enjoined, the federal government will continue to conduct medical marijuana raids that exceed
22 federal authority under the Commerce Clause.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Injunctive And Declaratory Relief For
Violation Of The Tenth Amendment)
25 112. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
26 through 111
27 113. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiffs and
28 the Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF,
DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
27
21500440.1/2096001-2960011334