Allen, et al v. County of Lake, et al

Filing 53

ORDER re: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2014)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MONA ALLEN, et al., 5 Plaintiffs, v. 6 7 COUNTY OF LAKE, et al., Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH ORDER RE: HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. 8 9 The parties shall come prepared to address the following at the October 6, 2014 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction: 12 13 QUESTIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS: 14 1. Do all Plaintiffs primarily reside in Lake County, and were the properties at 15 issue their residential properties? 2. Several of the Plaintiffs were clearly out of compliance with the Ordinance. Why 16 17 do they not have unclean hands when they ask this Court for equitable relief? 3. The Court notes that one Plaintiff had twenty-five medical marijuana plants on 18 19 her property. Is this number of plants typical for a single medical marijuana patient? 20 4. Why does the balance of equities favor Plaintiffs? 21 5. Why should the Court not apply the “heavy burden” test for the injunction in this 22 case? 6. How should the Court write an injunction that protects Plaintiffs’ Fourth 23 24 Amendment rights while also allowing the County to take action in legitimate 25 emergencies? 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 7. The Court is concerned that the allegations against the individual defendants do 2 not state a claim for relief. How should the Court write an injunction that protects 3 Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights if the allegations against these officials are 4 insufficient? 5 6 QUESTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS: 7 1. How long does it take to obtain a warrant for a search and seizure such as those 8 9 at issue in this case? 2. Why is the water used by, for example, six plants on less than an acre outdoors an emergency, justifying a warrantless search and seizure, but the water used by six plants 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 on just over an acre outdoors, or the water used by as many plants as fit in 100 square feet 12 indoors, perfectly acceptable under the Ordinance? Why are these standards not arbitrary? 13 14 15 3. Were the abatements at issue conducted according to the Ordinance’s summary abatement provision, or were these seizures consensual? 4. What is the justification for engaging in the immediate abatement of the 16 marijuana plants as opposed to waiting only five days to abate them in accordance with the 17 Ordinance’s notice process? 18 19 20 21 5. What other agricultural crops have been abated, summarily or otherwise, in order to save water in Lake County? 6. Besides the current drought, why does the balance of hardships favor Defendants? 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: 10/02/2014 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 28 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?