Armstrong et al v. Kilmartin
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 10 State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Claims asserted against Lynch and the Lynch Apostolates are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the Thomas C. Slater Compassio n Center, Inc.; Worlds Online, Inc.; Marimed Advisors, Inc.; Sigal Consulting, LLC; Gerald McGraw, Jr.; Joel Allcock; Jon Levine; and Robert N. Fireman. So Ordered by Senior Judge Mary M. Lisi on 5/17/2017. (Feeley, Susan) Modified on 5/17/2017 to reflect that a copy of Memorandum and Order was forwarded to Plaintiffs via first-class mail. (Feeley, Susan).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
ANNE ARMSTRONG and
ALAN GORDON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
C.A. No. 16-403-ML
PETER KILMARTIN, in his capacity
as Attorney General for Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, et al.,
Defendants
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Anne Armstrong (“Armstrong”) identifies herself as
a clergywoman and leader of the “Healing Church” in Rhode Island.
Plaintiff Alan Gordon (“Gordon,” together with Armstrong, the
“Plaintiffs”),
a
self-proclaimed
“cannabis
expert,”
Gordon
Affidavit at 1 (ECF No. 1-2), identifies himself as a clergyman
who serves the “Healing Church.”
The Plaintiffs have named
twenty (20) separate defendants in this litigation, including,
inter alia, representatives of the State of Rhode Island in their
official
Island
capacity;
State
individual
current
Police;
capacity
and
and
retired
unnamed
(together,
members
the
the
Rhode
officers
police
of
in
their
“State
Defendants”).
In
addition, the Plaintiffs have included a religious organization
and its founder, Dan Lynch; a non-profit corporation providing
access to
medical
marijuana
and
some
of
its
executives;
and
organizations advising on the cultivation of medical marijuana
1
and some of their executives (together with the State Defendants,
the “Defendants”).
As explained by the Plaintiffs in earlier litigation1 before
this Court, the “Healing Church” is a “Cannabist Faith,” which
involves
the
use
of
marijuana
during
religious
services.
Armstrong v. Jewell, et al., C.A. No. 15-215-ML, 151 F.Supp.3d
242, 243 (D.R.I. Dec. 7, 2015). On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiffs
were
arrested
felonies
at
under
their
the
residence
Rhode
Island
and
charged
Controlled
with
several
Substances
Act
(“CSA”), R.I. Gen. Laws §21-28-1 et seq. The pro se Plaintiffs
now seek (1) “protective injunctive Orders...to Stay and Dismiss
the
ongoing
State
Court
criminal
prosecution”
against
the
Plaintiffs, (2) return of certain property, and (3) “especially
to stop molesting the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ religion.”
1
In that case, the Plaintiffs brought claims against the
Secretary of the Interior, the Director of National Park Service,
and the site manager of Rhode Island’s federal park, asserting that
the government’s decision to allow church members to conduct their
religious service on the grounds of a national memorial only
without the use or distribution of marijuana constituted a
violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). This
Court, concluding that the government had met its burden to assert
a compelling interest in preventing the use and distribution of
marijuana at the National Memorial and to establish that it used
the least restrictive means to achieve that interest, dismissed the
case. Armstrong v. Jewell, et al., C.A. No. 15-215-ML, 151
F.Supp.3d 242, 243 (D.R.I. Dec. 7, 2015). The Plaintiffs’ appeal of
that case is currently pending in the First Circuit Court of
Appeals, which has stayed all briefing, pending the Appellate
Court’s decision on the government’s motion for a summary
disposition.
2
Complaint
at
constitutional
56
(ECF
Nos.
claims
8-3,
against
12).
the
In
State
addition
to
Defendants,
their
the
Plaintiffs have raised allegations against Dan Lynch (“Lynch”),
an out-of-state Defendant, for “openly publishing claims” that
“bent the law” and “bent the 1st Defendant Attorney General’s
functions...in a peculiar property grab.” Complaint at 25.
The matter before the Court is the State Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the amended complaint (the Complaint) (ECF No. 8-2,
12). For the reasons that follow, the State Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED.
I.
Factual Background2
According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs are “attempt[ing]
to protect a religious cannabis garden and related material from
RI
law
against
enforcement.”
the
State
Complaint
Defendants
at
9.
include
Plaintiffs’
“deliberate
allegations
religious
discrimination” and denial of “Free Exercise,” in violation of
2
The summary of facts is based on the allegations asserted in
the Complaint, to the extent the Plaintiffs’ claims and supporting
facts can be discerned therefrom. The State Defendants’ point is
well taken that the Complaint may well fall short of the
requirement in Federal Rule 8(a)(2) that “[a] pleading that states
a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;... Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).” Nevertheless, the Court is of the opinion that
in light of the clearly stated request for remedies and the related
proceedings currently pending in the Rhode Island state court, it
is preferable to determine the State Defendants’ motion on
substantive grounds.
3
the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment’s
Equal
Protection
Clause.
Complaint
at
9-10.
In
connection with their July 19, 2016 felony arrest, the Plaintiffs
complain of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, as well as the confiscation of their cannabis
plants. Complaint at 10.
The underlying events resulting in the criminal proceedings
against the Plaintiffs now pending in state court from which the
Plaintiffs seek relief are as follows:
Beginning in September 2015, Armstrong began making efforts
to obtain “temporary Guardianship” of what is described as a “6
foot-tall, +/- 100 pound replica travelling missionary painting
(“The Missionary Painting”) of La Virgen de Guadalupe, a 15th
century
miraculous
Complaint at 19.
Catholic
Mexican
botanical
healing
icon.”
According to the Complaint, Armstrong believes
that “the Missionary Painting depicted cannabis flowers in the
floral print of the Blessed Mother’s dress.” Id.
In late April 2016, Lynch — who, according to his answer to
the Complaint, is a retired Vermont state judge and heads “Dan
Lynch
Apostolates”
physical
custody
Complaint
at
Plaintiffs
began
—
of
20.
transferred
the
Soon
publicly
temporary
Missionary
after
Painting
receiving
displaying
4
guardianship
the
the
image
to
and
Armstrong.
Painting,
with
the
cannabis
while reiterating various claims regarding the healing power of
cannabis.3
Id.
According
to
the
Complaint
and
Armstrong’s
relating of the events in the documents attached thereto, Lynch
took exception to some aspects of Plaintiffs’ activities and
demanded
return
of
the
Painting
by
threatening
criminal
prosecution. Complaint at 20, Attachment 1 at 4 (ECF No. 11-1).
In
late
June
“uninvited,
Missionary
with
2016,
Lynch
a
municipal
Painting
under
visited
Plaintiffs’
police
threat
of
officer,
residence
seeking
criminal
the
complaint.”
Complaint at 21. According to the Plaintiffs, “Lynch positively
noticed cannabis before or shortly after being asked to leave.”
Id.
The
Plaintiffs
further
allege
that,
shortly
after
his
accompanied visit to Plaintiffs’ residence, Lynch influenced an
“Attorney General in the Kent County RI division, to personally
attend the premises of the Plaintiffs on or about June 23, 2016,
threatening – unless the Missionary Painting were voluntarily
yielded to Judge Lynch – to serve a criminal search warrant for
the Missionary Painting, a search in which cannabis ... would, it
was announced, suddenly be seen and prosecuted...” Complaint at
21-22.
When
Armstrong
subsequently
refused
to
return
the
3
By way of example, the Plaintiffs assert that “cannabis, an
anti-viral agent, can prevent abortions by killing [the] Zika
virus.” Complaint at 20.
5
Painting, a search warrant was served, pursuant to which police
conducted
a
search
of
the
premises.
Complaint
at
22.
The
Plaintiffs acknowledge that they had repeatedly given notice to
the State that cannabis was present at their residence and that
cannabis had been seen by police when an officer accompanied
Lynch on his earlier visit. Complaint at 23.
Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in this Court on July
15,
2016.
At
the
same
time,
they
also
engaged
in
“flurried
attempts ... to obtain protective Orders in various Courts.”
Complaint at 22. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiffs were arrested
and
various
materials
were
seized
from
their
residence.4
Complaint at 23. It is undisputed that neither of the Plaintiffs
possess
or
have
applied
for
a
registry
identification
pursuant to the Medical Marijuana Act, R.I.
card
Gen. Laws §§ 21-
28.6-1 et seq., which might allow them to possess, grow, or use
limited quantities of marijuana.
Although the Complaint continues for an additional thirty
4
As noted by the State Defendants in their motion to dismiss,
after obtaining a search warrant, members of the Rhode Island
Police High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Unit went to the
Plaintiffs’ residence and seized fifty-nine marijuana plants,
quantities of dried marijuana, Butane Hash Oil, and related
paraphernalia. The Plaintiffs were each charged under R.I. Gen. Laws
§ 21-28-4.01(a)(4)(i) with two counts of delivery/possession with the
intent to deliver and manufacturing a controlled substance (felony);
and § 21-28-4.01.2(a)(5), which makes it a felony to possess more than
five (5) kilograms of marijuana.
6
pages, the remainder consists of a collection of tales related to
Plaintiffs’ activities as leaders of the “Healing Church,” their
experiences while being detained, and their views of the medical
marijuana industry in Rhode Island, all of which culminate in the
alleged violations of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of
religious
freedom,
gravamen
of
constitutional
the
equal
protection,
Plaintiffs’
rights
are
and
due
Complaint
is
impaired
by
the
process.
that
State’s
The
their
Uniform
Controlled Substances Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28-1.01 et seq.,
the Medical Marijuana Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-1, and the
exemption
from
alcoholic
beverage
related
to
“the
use,
consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by a minor for
religious purposes” in R.I. Gen. Laws §3-8-11.1(d). As a primary
remedy, the Plaintiffs seek to stay and dismiss the criminal
proceedings pending against them in state court and to “stop
molesting the exercise of [their] religion.” The Plaintiffs also
seek the return of the Missionary Painting, restoration of their
property,
and
compensation
for
Complaint at 56.
7
their
“irremediable
harms.”
II. Procedural History
On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint5
in this Court (ECF No. 1), to which they attached (1) a 25-page
affidavit of Gordon in which he relates, inter alia, that he
returned early from a foot pilgrimage to D.C. in order to attend
to the ripening cannabis plants in the Plaintiffs’ back yard; and
that
he
had
previously
“personally
harvested
approximately
3
dozen plants (36) of varying sizes, out of nearly 70 originally
planted”;
(2) a
37-page
publication
titled
“A
Bible
Full
of
Cannabis,” authored by the Plaintiffs; (3) a 9-page affidavit of
Armstrong; and (4) a 35-page publication titled “Newly-Noticed
Notes Demonstrate that Harry J. Anslinger, Author of the US’
Original 1937 Cannabis Ban, was Probably a World War II Era Axis
Fascist Racial Supremacist Enemy Agent Working Within the Highest
Ranks of US Law Enforcement,” also authored by the Plaintiffs.
(ECF Nos. 1-2 through 1-5).
On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiffs were arrested and charged
with drug felonies under Rhode Island law. At the date of this
Order
and
Memorandum,
the
criminal
proceedings
against
them
remain pending in Rhode Island state court.
5
The Plaintiffs maintain that “the original Complaint’s main
two sought-after rights recognitions (religious and fair trial/due
process) still overarch the whole matter” and that “[f]or that
reason, the original Complaint is left intact.” Complaint at 15.
8
On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an
extension of time to amend their complaint (ECF No. 8), to which
they attached a copy of the amended complaint (ECF No. 10). The
State Defendants raised no objection thereto (ECF No. 9). The
Plaintiffs’ motion was granted on December 6, 2016. On December
22, 2016, the State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint as amended (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiffs
filed
a
response
On January 9, 2017, the
in
opposition
to
the
State
Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 11), together with (1) a selection of
documents
under
Disciplinary
Nuncio’s
the
heading
Complaint
to
Correspondence,”
conditions
in
the
state
“First
the
(2)
RI
two
Plaintiff’s
Supreme
Court,
documents
criminal
[Armstrong]
with
related
proceedings
Papal
to
against
bail
the
Plaintiffs, and (3) a document under the heading “Privileged
Email Sent to Court.” (ECF Nos. 11-1, 11-2, 11-3). The State
Defendants
filed
a
reply
on
January
17,
2017
(ECF
13).
The
Plaintiffs filed a further reply memorandum on January 19, 2017
(ECF No. 15). Finally, on March 8, 2017, Dan Lynch filed an
answer
to
the
Complaint
in
which
he
denies
many
of
the
allegations and seeks dismissal of the claims against him and his
organization6 (ECF Nos. 18, 19).
6
Lynch has not, however, filed any motion seeking dismissal of
the claims against him.
9
III. Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In
considering
construe
a
the
motion
to
complaint
dismiss
in
the
a
complaint the
light
most
Court
favorable
“must
to
the
plaintiff, taking all well-pleaded facts as true, and giving the
Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Arruda v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2002). In order to
withstand a motion to dismiss, a claim “must contain sufficient
factual matter ... to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64, 72-73 (1st Cir.
2012. The complaining party must include “factual content that
allows the court to draw a reasonable inference” in the pleader’s
favor. Id. “If, under any theory, the allegations are sufficient
to state a cause of action in accordance with the law,” the
motion to dismiss must be denied. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., 14
F.3d
697,
700
(1st
Cir.1994).
The
Court
ignores,
however,
“statements in the complaint that simply offer legal labels and
conclusions or merely rehash cause-of-action-elements.” Schatz v.
Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir.
2012).
Although
the
Court
generally
may
not
consider
documents
outside of the complaint unless it converts the motion to dismiss
10
into one for summary judgment, it may make an exception “for
documents
the authenticity
of
which
are
not
disputed
by
the
parties; for official public records; for documents central to
the plaintiffs’ claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to
in the complaint.” Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.
1993).
Generally, pro se plaintiffs' pleadings are held to less
stringent standards than those of lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). However, the
First Circuit
specific
has
facts
“required
backing
even
up
pro se plaintiffs
their
claims
of
to plead
civil
rights
violations.” Glaros v. Perse, 628 F.2d 679, 684 (1st Cir.1980).
IV.
Discussion
A.
The Parties’ Positions
The
State
Defendants
seek
dismissal
of
the
Complaint
pursuant to the Younger7 Abstention, on the grounds that (1) the
Plaintiffs have currently two civil cases pending in state court,
in one of which they seek the same relief as in the instant
litigation; and (2) there is an active criminal case pending
against
the
Plaintiffs
for
violations
of
the
Controlled
7
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669
(1971)(holding that abstention is warranted where plaintiff
attempts to enjoin pending state criminal proceedings from going
forward).
11
Substances Act, resulting from the same activities for which the
Plaintiffs
addition,
seek
the
constitutional
State
protection
Defendants
assert
in
that
this
(1)
case.
the
In
State
Defendants, who are sued only in their official capacity, are
immune from an action for damages; (2) any action against the
State
Defendants
is
barred
by
the
11th
Amendment;
(3)
the
Attorney General is immune from suit when acting as a prosecutor
(and as the State’s attorney defending a civil lawsuit); (4)
Plaintiffs
have
not
alleged
a
cause
of
action
against
the
Governor; (5) Plaintiffs cannot maintain this action against A.T.
Wall, the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections;
(6)
Plaintiffs
fail
to
state
a
claim
against
Colonel
Ann
Assumpico, Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police; and
(7)
neither
the
Rhode
Island
Medical
Marijuana
Act
nor
the
Controlled Substances Act deprive the Plaintiffs of their Free
Exercise rights or any other federally protected right.
In response, the Plaintiffs have suggested, inter alia, that
by arguing alternative defenses to the Abstention Doctrine and
immunity,
the
State
Defendants
have
already
waived
those
arguments. Pltfs.’ Response at 2 (ECF No. 11). The remainder of
their response which, like the Complaint, is not a model of
clarity, focuses on allegations of bias against the state courts,
corruption of the police force, and suggestions of a general
12
conspiracy related to the State’s regulation and criminalization
of marijuana. What is evident from the response, however, is that
the Plaintiffs first and foremost seek to preclude the criminal
proceedings pending against them in state court.
As to Dan Lynch and Dan Lynch Apostolates, who have filed
separate answers to the Complaint, Lynch suggests that (1) the
Plaintiffs are suing him for “his lawfully reporting an alleged
crime
to
law
enforcement
authorities;”
and
(2)
Dan
Lynch
Apostolates is “not a person in the eyes of the law as it is not
a company, nor a corporation but simply a registered trade name
in the State of Vermont for two nonprofit corporations.” Answers
(ECF Nos. 18, 19).
B.
Younger Abstention
In Younger, the Supreme Court clearly expressed that “the
normal
pending
thing
to
do
proceedings
when
in
federal
state
courts
courts
is
are
not
asked
to
to
issue
enjoin
such
injunctions.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45, 91 S.Ct. 746,
751, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 ( 1971). Although it is well established that
“when absolutely necessary for the protection of constitutional
rights, courts of the United States have power to enjoin state
officers from instituting criminal actions, . . . this may not be
done, except under extraordinary circumstances, where the danger
of irreparable loss is both great and immediate.” Id. However,
13
“[o]rdinarily,
officers;
there
should
primarily,
they
be
are
no
interference
charged
with
with
the
duty
such
of
prosecuting offenders against the laws of the state, and must
decide when and how this is to be done.” Id. Accordingly, a
defendant is advised to “set up and rely upon his defense in the
state
courts,
even
though
this
involves
a
challenge
of
the
validity of some statute, unless it plainly appears that this
course would not afford adequate protection.” Id. (listing cases
involving threatened prosecutions in which those principles have
been affirmed.) See also Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs,
134 S.Ct. 584, 588, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013) (noting that “[w]hen
there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal
courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution.”) The
doctrine has been extended to “particular state civil proceedings
that are akin to criminal prosecutions...or that implicate a
State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its
courts.” Id. (quotations omitted).
The
First
Circuit
has
further
clarified
that
abstention
under Younger is appropriate “when the requested relief would
interfere (1) with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) that
implicates an important
state interest; and (3) that provides an
adequate opportunity for the federal plaintiff to advance his
federal constitutional challenge.” Rossi v. Gemma, 489 F.3d 26,
14
34-35 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Brooks v. N.H. Supreme Court, 80
F.3d 633, 638 (1st Cir.1996); Bettencourt v. Bd. of Registration
in Med., 904 F.2d 772, 777 (1st Cir.1990)); Sirva Relocation, LLC
v. Richie, 794 F.3d 185, 192 (1st Cir. 2015)(noting that “federal
court must abstain when there is an ongoing state proceeding
(judicial in nature), which implicates important state interests
and provides an adequate opportunity to raise federal defenses.”)
C.
This Case
1.
The State Defendants
As noted by the Plaintiffs, after Lynch’s visit to their
residence in June 2016, during which police had the opportunity
to observe signs of drug activity, the Plaintiffs engaged in
“flurried attempts ... to obtain protective Orders in various
Courts.” Complaint
Defendants
attempts,
in
the
at
their
22. As
further
memorandum,
Plaintiffs
were
in
explained
at
contending
least
that
by
the
State
one
of
those
regulation
of
medical cannabis interferes with their religious belief and free
exercise and they are generally challenging the same statutes at
issue in this case. Defs.’ Mem. at
9 (ECF No. 10-1). After
Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was denied by the state
court judge, that case has remained pending in Rhode Island state
court.
In addition, the criminal proceedings that have commenced
15
against the Plaintiffs in state court are directly related to the
alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act for which the
Plaintiffs now seek protection in this Court. As in the civil
proceedings, the Plaintiffs have taken the position that their
religion,
which
includes
the
use
and/or
distribution
of
marijuana, excuses them from compliance with existing state law.
In the instant case, the Plaintiffs explicitly request that this
Court
“Stay
and
Dismiss
the
ongoing
State
Court
criminal
prosecution” and that it allow the Plaintiffs to continue their
activities in the future. Complaint at 56.
The request to enjoin pending state criminal proceedings
from going forward or to issue a declaration that the state law
serving as a basis for the Plaintiffs’ criminal prosecution is
unconstitutional is exactly the type of interference that the
Younger doctrine seeks to preclude. Rio Grande Community Health
Center, Inc. v. Rullan, 397 F.3d 56, 70 (1st Cir. 2005).
As
Plaintiffs
candidly
litigation
in
the
marijuana
in
their
acknowledge,
anticipation
that
residence
they
the
might
commenced
known
result
this
presence
in
of
criminal
proceedings. The timing of this litigation and the requested
remedy to stay and dismiss the state criminal proceedings would
certainly qualify as a interference with ongoing state judicial
proceedings,
thus
meeting
the
first
16
requirement
for
Younger
abstention.
As to the second requirement, it is undisputable that the
State
has
an
prosecuting
important
violations
interest
of
in
existing
regulating
state
laws.
drugs
and
Finally,
in
the
policies underlying Younger “preclude[] any presumption that the
state courts will not safeguard federal constitutional rights.”
Middlesex County Ethics Commission v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457
U.S. 423, 431, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). There is
nothing to indicate, and Plaintiffs have not asserted, that they
will not be able to raise their constitutional arguments in the
state
court
proceedings
or
that
the
state
court
will
not
safeguard their constitutional rights.
For all those reasons, the Court deems it appropriate to
abstain from adjudicating Plaintiffs’ claims against the State
Defendants.
Accordingly,
the
Court
finds
that
the
Complaint
cannot withstand the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
2.
The Other Defendants
As to Lynch and his Apostolates, the Plaintiffs’ claims are
limited
to
alleging
that
Lynch
“improperly
influenced
RI’s
Attorney General to tamper with criminal evidence and thereby
convert [Armstrong’s] property over State lines.” Complaint at
16. In support of this contention, the Plaintiffs assert that
they had “temporary guardianship” over the “replica travelling
17
missionary
painting,”
Complaint
at
19,
which
had
been
in
possession of Lynch and to which he claimed absolute ownership.
Complaint
at
21.
According
attempted
to
obtain
return
to
of
the
the
Complaint,
Painting
Lynch
“by
first
defamation
pressure.” Complaint at 20. The Plaintiffs further assert that,
after Armstrong refused to return the Painting to Lynch upon his
demand, the Painting was taken by police pursuant to a search
warrant served on the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now seek the return
of the Painting which they describe as having been “converted”
across state lines. Complaint at 16, 56.
As acknowledged by the Plaintiffs, they are residents of
Rhode Island, whereas Lynch is a resident of Vermont. No monetary
value has been ascribed to the Painting, which is described as a
“replica” of the actual Missionary Painting. Accordingly, it is
unclear, and Plaintiffs have neither asserted nor established,
that
this
Court
has
subject
matter
jurisdiction
over
the
Plaintiffs’ claims against Lynch. Furthermore, their claims of
conversion and defamation, to the extent they can even be gleaned
from the Complaint, appear to be rooted solely in state law.
Because the Court has determined that the federal claims
against the State Defendants must be dismissed, and given the
unsupported and inconsistent statements by the Plaintiffs as to
the ownership of the Painting, the Court declines to exercise its
18
ancillary jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs’ state law
based claims. Accordingly, those claims must be dismissed as
well.
As
to
the
remaining
Defendants,
the
Thomas
C.
Slater
Compassion Center,8 Worlds Online, Inc., their two subsidiaries
Sigal Consulting, LLC and MariMed Advisors, Inc., as well as
several individuals described as executives of or consultants to
those entities, it is unclear that any of those Defendants have
ever been served in the four months since they were first named
as Defendants in this suit.
According to the Complaint, these Defendants, together with
a number of unnamed Defendants “comprise a RI market-dominating
cannabis
store.”
Complaint
at
35.
With
respect
to
these
Defendants, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants engaged in
“unlawful
work”
that
“occurred
in
separate
complex
behavior
sequences too distinctly peculiar to be unrelated –– and in order
to concurrently deprive others (Plaintiffs included), often under
color of law, of rights relative to those rights supra-legally
8
Under Rhode Island’s Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater
Medical Marijuana Act, a “compassion center” is defined as “a
not-for-profit corporation, subject to the provisions of chapter 6
of title 7, and registered under § 21-28.6-12, that acquires,
possesses,
cultivates,
manufactures,
delivers,
transfers,
transports, supplies, or dispenses marijuana, and/or related
supplies and educational materials, to patient cardholders and/or
their registered caregiver cardholder or authorized purchaser.”
R.I. Gen. Laws §21-28.6-3(4).
19
given to [them].” Complaint at 35. According to the Plaintiffs,
the
complained
of
behavior
“compromises
the
[Plaintiffs’]
inalienable rights to Equal Protection, Fair Trial, and/or Due
Process and/or Free Exercise, Free Association and freedom from
Establishment.” Id.
What Plaintiffs appear to be complaining of is that these
Defendants, who have been granted a limited exemption from Rhode
Island’s
controlled
differently
themselves
license
than
of
the
the
(because
substances
Plaintiffs,
opportunity
their
to
faith
laws,
who
are
have
obtain
prohibits
a
being
declined
medical
treated
to
avail
marijuana
participating
in
the
census).
As noted herein, the Complaint is extremely difficult to
decipher and
Defendants
on
are
those
subject
grounds
to
alone,
dismissal.
the
claims
Moreover,
against
there
is
the
no
evidence that these Defendants have ever been served — none of
them has filed a response to the Complaint — and the Plaintiffs
have not sought any remedy with respect to these Defendants. The
gravamen of this litigation is to avoid the pending criminal
proceedings against the Plaintiffs and to gain authorization for
continuing their marijuana-related practices. The purpose of the
Plaintiffs’ claims against this particular group of Defendants
appears to be bolstering the Plaintiffs’ defenses against their
20
criminal
prosecutions
in
state
court.
To
the
extent
the
Plaintiffs wish to assert such allegations as a defense, they can
do so in state court.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the State Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to
enter
judgment
declines
to
in
favor
exercise
of
the
ancillary
State
Defendants.
jurisdiction
over
The
the
Court
claims
asserted against Lynch and the Lynch Apostolates. Those claims
are
DISMISSED
entirely
without
lacking
remaining
in
Defendants,
prejudice.
discernible
the
Because
legal
Complaint
prejudice as to those Defendants.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Lisi
Senior United States District Judge
May 17, 2017
21
is
the
claims
Complaint
is
against
the
DISMISSED
without
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?