Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari Inc. by Rev. Tom Brown et al v. Gonzales et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker denying 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, denying 11 Motion for Hearing. The court DENIES plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order (Doc #1) for lack of showing of irreparable injury/balance of hardships. The parties should be ready to discuss status and trial setting at the initial case management conference scheduled for October 10, 2006, at 9:00 AM.(vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2006).

Download PDF
Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari Inc. by Rev. Tom B...et al v. Gonzales et al Doc. 20 Case 3:06-cv-04264-VRW Document 20 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MULTI DENOMINATIONAL MINISTRY OF CANNABIS AND RASTAFARI, INC, et al, Plaintiffs, v ALBERTO GONZALES, et al, Defendants. / No C06-4264 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On July 12, 2006, plaintiffs sued seeking, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent defendants from interfering with the exercise of plaintiffs' religion, which centers around the use of marijuana. That same day, plaintiffs filed ex parte motions "for immediate in camera hearing" and "for preliminary and permanent injunction." Doc #1. Plaintiffs still have not clearly articulated the imminent threat they face that could justify a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. See Doc ##1-12, 19. Rather, plaintiffs simply assume the government will act against them based on the government's past conduct and its refusal to assure them that it will refrain from such action in the future. Doc #17 at 15. Additionally, Lake County Sheriff Rodney K Mitchell Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-04264-VRW Document 20 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 has affirmed under oath that he has "no information that any of the plaintiffs are presently engaging in any practice which violates state or local law" and that he has "no present plan to take any action to investigate the activities of any of the plaintiffs and [has] not been asked to participate in any investigation conducted by any other law enforcement agency." Doc #18, Ex A. Based on this record, the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs' face an imminent harm that could justify injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order (Doc #1) for lack of showing of irreparable injury/balance of hardships. The parties should be United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ready to discuss status and trial setting at the initial case management conference scheduled for October 10, 2006, at 9:00 AM. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?