Siskiyou Alternative Medicine v. Siskiyou County et al.

Filing 17

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/23/2016 DENYING 5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SISKIYOU ALTERNATIVE
MEDICINE,

No.

2:16-cv-02238-JAM-CMK

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17

JON LOPEY, SISKIYOU COUNTY,
SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, SISKIYOU COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, DOES 1-10,

18

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendants.

19
20

Siskiyou Alternative Medicine (“SAM”) filed suit against

21

Defendants in September 2016 alleging constitutional violations

22

associated with Siskiyou County’s enforcement of marijuana

23

ordinances.

24

preliminary injunction.

25

below, the Court denies the motion for preliminary injunction and

26

ECF No. 5.

//

28

A month later, SAM filed a motion for

//

27

ECF No. 1.

//
1

For the reasons set forth

1

dismisses this case for lack of jurisdiction. 1

2

I.

3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

SAM is a volunteer organization that “provid[es] a safe

4

haven for disabled patients [and] oversite (sic) to ensure that

5

the county is acting within the authority of the law.”

6

¶ 1.

7

marijuana.

8

members because its members fear retaliation.”

9

Inj. (“Mot.”) at 2.

Compl.

10

SAM members are individuals who possess and use medical
Id.

SAM states that it “stands in the place of its
Mot. for Prelim.

In June 2016, the voters of Siskiyou County approved two

11

ordinances restricting the cultivation of medical marijuana.

Id.

12

¶ 2.

13

ordinances soon after the June election and in doing so have

14

conducted searches with defective warrants and seized marijuana

15

plants that SAM members were lawfully growing.

16

states that, despite trying to comply with State laws, its

17

members have been “continually harassed and victimized by

18

Siskiyou County Sheriff Department and County officials.”

19

at 2.

SAM alleges that Defendants began enforcing the new

Id. ¶ 10.

SAM

Mot.

20

SAM alleges the following causes of action in its complaint:

21

(1) substantive due process, (2) procedural due process under the

22

California constitution, (3) Fourth Amendment right against

23

unlawful seizure, (4) equal protection under the California

24

constitution.

25

harassment and police violence” allegedly suffered by SAM and its

SAM seeks an injunction preventing “the continued

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for November 30, 2016.
2

1

members.

Mot. at 2.

2

II.

3

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

SAM submitted a declaration by Wayne Walent, the president

4

of SAM, in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.

5

No. 5-3.

6

declaration.

7

members of SAM.

8
9

ECF

SAM attached twelve hand-written letters to Walent’s
It is not clear if the authors of the letters are

Defendants object to the declaration of Walent and to each
of the exhibits attached to Walent’s declaration.

ECF No. 9-3.

10

Defendants argue that Walent’s declaration is inadmissible

11

because “it does not contain any allegation that the declaration

12

is made of personal knowledge.”

13

Defendants argue that the exhibits attached to Walent’s

14

declaration are inadmissible because they are not offered under

15

penalty of perjury.

16

declaration and the attached exhibits are all legally deficient

17

affidavits and therefore inadmissible.

18

Defendants’ objections to the Walent declaration and the attached

19

exhibits and has not considered such evidence in deciding this

20

motion.

Id. at 3.

Written Objs. to Evid. at 2.

The Court finds that the Walent

The Court sustains

21
22

III.

23

OPINION

Defendants argue that the Court must deny SAM’s motion for

24

preliminary injunction (1) because SAM does not have standing to

25

bring a suit on behalf of its members, and (2) SAM has not met

26

its burden to show it is entitled to injunctive relief.

27

6-19.

28
3

Opp’n at

1

A.

2

An organization may bring suit on behalf of its members

Standing

3

under the doctrine of “associational” or “representational”

4

standing.

5

333, 342–44 (1977).

6

limited exception to the general rule that litigants must assert

7

their own rights in order to have standing.”

8

Distribs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 2016 WL

9

2885848, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2016).

Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S.
“Associational standing is a narrow and

United Safeguard

A plaintiff asserting

10

association standing has the burden to allege specific facts

11

establishing associational standing.

12

associational standing, the organization must show that (1) at

13

least one of its members would have standing to sue in his own

14

right, (2) the interests the suit seeks to vindicate are germane

15

to the organization's purpose, and (3) neither the claim

16

asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of

17

individual members in the lawsuit.

18

Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 553

19

(1996) (citing Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343).

20

Id.

To obtain

United Food & Commercial

Here, SAM has failed to allege facts or provide any

21

admissible evidence to satisfy its burden of establishing

22

associational standing.

23

members, let alone shown that such member would have standing to

24

sue in his own right.

25

is not possible for [SAM] to establish the individual rights of

26

its members or establish the proper amount of compensatory and

27

consequential damages for each aggrieved member without the

28

personal participation of those members.”

SAM has not identified any of its

Additionally, Defendants argue that “[i]t

4

Opp’n at 6.

The

1

Court agrees with Defendants: SAM has not shown that awarding

2

the requested compensatory and consequential damages can be

3

achieved without the participation of individual members in the

4

lawsuit.

5

to show that SAM can sue Defendants on behalf of SAM’s members.

6

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and

7

therefore lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits, or lack

8

thereof, of SAM’s motion for preliminary injunction.

9

Meister v. City of Hawthorne, 2014 WL 3040175, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

The Court finds that SAM has failed to meet its burden

See

10

May 13, 2014) (“Standing under Article II is a critical

11

component of a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”).

12
13
14

IV.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, SAM’s motion for

15

preliminary injunction is denied and Plaintiff’s case is

16

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 23, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5