MAINE COURT ORDERS
==========
1997-1999
Dee v. State of Maine
MSJC Decision No. Mem. 99-59
SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, DOCKET NO. CV-97-763
2000-2001
State of Maine v. Dee
MSJC Decision No. Mem 01-59
SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, NO. AP-00-045
2000-2002
Dee v Maine
SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, DOC. NO. CV-00-648
MSJC Decision No. Mem 02-1
2006-2008
Petition for Declaratory Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, DOC. NO. CV-06-707
MSJC Decision No. Mem. 07-405
In The Supreme Court of the United States
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 07-1534
============================
1997-1999
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision No. Mem 99-59
Docket No, Cum-98-588
MICHAEL J. DEE
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Submitted on Briefs April 15, 1999
Decided April 30, 1999
Panel: WATHEN, C-J,, and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN. DANA, 5AUFLEY, and ALEXANDER. JJ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Michael J. Dee appeals from a judgment entered In tine Superior Court (Cumberland County. Calkins. J.) dismissing his complaint for declaratory judgment. Dee's complaint for declaratory judgment challenges the constitutionality of two Maine statutes regarding the possession and furnishing of marijuana. 17-A M.R.S.A, | U06(3)(AJ (1963 & Supp. 1938) (provides for presumption of unlawful furnishing for possession of more than 1 1/4 ounces of marijuana), and 22 M.RS.A. § 2383(1) (1992) (provides for civil violation for possession of useable amount of marijuana). Dee's allegations do not implicate the denial of any of his fundamental rights, see United States v. Fry.787 F 2d 903, 905 (4th Cir, L98&), and there is no indication that Dee is being prosecuted for any violation of the laws that he challenges. Accordingly, the court acted within its discretion in dismissing the complaint, Dodge v. Town of Norridgewock. 577 A.2d 346, 347 (Me, 1990}.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
=================================
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS.
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-97-763
MICHAEL J. DEE Plaintiff
v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ANDREW KETTERER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendant
In this action the plaintiff, Michael J. Dee, seeks to have the court declare that the marijuana statutes are unconstitutional because they prohibit the possession and use of marijuana for private use. Dee argues that the restriction against private possession of marijuana violates Art. 1, § 5 of the Maine Constitution. Presently pending before the court are Dee's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Dee filed a similar action in federal court seeking a declaration that both the federal and state marijuana laws are unconstitutional. Dee v. Reno, No. 95-29-P-H (Sept. 11, 1995), aff'd 82 F.3d 403 (1st Cir.) cert, denied, 117 S.Ct. 190 (1996). Judge Hornby ruled that in light of the national case law which generally concludes that marijuana statutes are constitutional, and given that there was no specific law enforcement activity at that time directed against the plaintiff, declaratory relief inappropriate.
This action is indistinguishable from the federal action. This court also declines to exercise its discretion to issue a declaratory judgment for the same reasons stated by Judge Hornby.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Judgment is granted to the defendant.
Dated: July 6,1998 
Susan Calkins, Superior Court Justice
============================
2000-2001
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decision
Decision No. Mem 01-59
Docket No. Ken-01-78
STATE OF MAINE
V.
MICHAEL J. DEE
Submitted on Briefs June 25, 2001
Decided June 26, 2001
Panel: WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, and ALEXANDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Michael J. Dee appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Atwood, J.) affirming the judgment of the District Court (Augusta, Worth, J.), which found him guilty of the possession of a usable amount of marijuana, in violation of 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) (Supp. 2000). Contrary to Dee's contentions, 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383 does not contravene the fundamental rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, nor does the statute violate their counterparts in the Maine Constitution—Article I, §§ 1, 5, and 6-A. See Dee v. Attorney General, Mem. 99-59 (Me. 1999); United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903, 905 (4th Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 861, 107 S. Ct. 209, 93 L.Ed.2d 139 (1986); Rupert v. City of Portland, 605 A.2d 63, 66 (Me. 1992). The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
certified copy sent to Clerk on 6-26-01
COPY SENT TO ALL PARTIES ON.6-26-01
{These last two statement are stamped only on this MSJC decsion. Dee never recieved a this copy of this decision therefore not appealed to the USSC}
=============================
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss.
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-00-045
MICHAEL J. DEE,
Appellant
v. DECISION AND ORDER
STATE OF MAINE,
Appellee
This matter is before the court on Michael J. Dee's appeal from the judgment of the District Court, Southern Kennebec Division (Worth, /.), in which the appellant was adjudicated to have committed the civil violation of Possession of a Usable Amount of Marijuana, 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) (Pamph. 2000).
I. Facts and Procedural History
On February 8, 2000, Capital Security Officer Ronald Peaslee, responding to a complaint, found Michael Dee on the fourth floor of the State House with a marijuana plant. Officer Peaslee asked Dee to leave the building. Mr. Dee refused to leave unless Officer Peaslee summonsed him for possession of marijuana. Mr. Peaslee then summonsed Mr. Dee, seized the marijuana plant, and removed him from the building.
Prior to trial, Mr. Dee moved for dismissal, challenging the constitutional validity of 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383 (1). Specifically, Dee asserted that he had a fundamental and protected liberty interest in using marijuana, and that his prosecution under the statute was in contravention to these constitutionally protected interests. The District Court declined to act on the motion and the matter
2
was tried on June 1, 2000 at which proceeding the District Court adjudicated that the appellant had committed the civil violation for which he had been cited. Dee has timely filed this appeal/ challenging the constitutionality of the statute prohibiting the possession of a usable amount of marijuana.
As is required by M.R. Civ. P. 76F (c),-the appellant has also submitted a statement of the District Court proceedings based on his own recollection. The State has filad a motion to correct or modify the record submitted by the appellant asserting that it contains improper legal argument. The appellant has objected to the motion, arguing that the resolution of constitutional issues requires legal argument. The motion is DENIED as moot as the appeal is to be denied on its merits.
IL Discussion
This court's appellate review of the District Court is restricted to questions of law, M.R. Civ. P. 76D, and the appellant does not challenge the factual findings by the District Court upon which its decision was predicated. Rather, he asserts, as he did in his motion to dismiss filed with the District Court, that the statute prohibiting the possession of a usable amount of marijuana is unconstitutional.
The appellant grounds his challenge loosely on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and their similar counterparts found at Article I, §§ 1, 5 and 6-A of the Maine Constitution. Mr. Dee argues that the enforcement of the marijuana laws cause injury to fundamental rights. He does not, however, clarify what these fundamental rights are or how they apply to the
3
possession of marijuana. The Law Court has already stated, in a case in which Mr. Dee attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the State's marijuana laws by .way of declaratory judgment, that his "allegations do not implicate the denial of any of his fundamental rights . . ." Dee v. Attorney General, Mem. 99-59. This court must, of course, agree. There is absolutely no authority for the proposition that the possession or use of marijuana, whether public or private, is constitutionally protected either explicitly or implicitly. Indeed, as the appellant acknowledges in his papers, there is considerable authority to the contrary. The appellant's personal belief that marijuana use is safe without medical supervision is an argument which is simply not justiciable. This policy concern is best directed to the Legislature which is vested with the constitutional authority to make law rather than to the courts whose sole job it is to interpret or enforce it.
Therefore the entry will be: Appellee's Motion to Correct or Modify Record on Appeal is DENIED as moot; adjudication in the District Court is AFFIRMED; case REMANDED to the District Court for action consistent with this Decision and Order. Dated: January 24, 2001   John R. Atwood Justice, Superior Court
=========================================================
2000-2002
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss.
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-00-648
MICHAEL J. DEE,
Plaintiff
v. DECISION AND ORDER
STATE OF MAINE,
Defendant
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 27, 1999, plaintiff Michael Dee waved a marijuana plant at traffic while standing at Merrill's Corner in Portland. Although two Portland Police officers allegedly told Dee to stay out of the street or they would arrest him, they did not arrest or summons him or seize his marijuana plant.
The plaintiff's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that arbitrary enforcement of the statute that makes possession of marijuana a civil violation, 22 M.R.S.A. § 2333(1) (Supp. 2000), violates due process of law and that 22 M.R.S.A. 2383(1) is unconstitutional. In addition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, both parties have filed motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(c). For the following reasons, the plaintiff's motions are denied and judgment is entered in favor of the defendant.
DISCUSSION
The doctrine of res judicata, "a court-made collection of rules designed to ensure that the same matter will not be litigated more than once," operates as a bar to the plaintiff's action. Camps v. Newfound/Owatonna v. Harrison, 1998 ME 20, ¶ 11, 705 A.2d 1109, 1113 (quoting Machias Sav. Bank v. Ramsdell. 1997 ME 20, ¶ 5 11,
1
689 A.2d 595, 599). There are two types of res judicata: issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, and claim preclusion, or the doctrine of bar. In re Kaleb D.. 2001 ME 55, ¶ 7, A.2d . Claim preclusion prohibits relitigation of an entire cause of action. Id. ¶ 8. Collateral estoppel, the branch of res judicata applicable to this case, "prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided if 'the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and . . . the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding.' " Cline v. Maine Coast Nordic. 1999 ME 72, ¶ 9, 728 A.2d 686, 688 (quoting Perry v. H.O. Perry & Son, Co.. 1998 ME 131, ¶ 6, 711 A.2d 1303,1305).
In this action, the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that 22 M.RS.A. § 2383(1) is unconstitutional. The plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue because an identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment and Mr. Dee had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the constitutionality of the marijuana law in that prior proceeding. 'See Dee v. Ketterer, CV-97-763 (Me. Super. Ct, Cum. Cty., July 9, 1998) (Calkins, J.), aff'd sub nonf. Dee v. Attorney General, No. 99-59 (Me. April 30, 1999) (mem); see also Dee v. Reno. No. 95-29-P-H (D. Me. Sept. 11,1995), aff'd, 82 F.3d 403 (1st Cir. 1996).
The plaintiff's petition also fails to demonstrate the existence of a justiciable controversy. Mr. Dee may invoke the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act only if there is a genuine controversy, that is, if the case is ripe for judicial consideration and action. See Patrons Oxford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 1998 ME 38, ¶ 4, 707 A.2d 384, 385.
2
The plaintiff claims the Portland Police violated due process of law by arbitrarily refusing to seize the plaintiff's marijuana and failing to issue him a summons to appear in court for violating 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1). Mr. Dee has neither "set forth a claim of right or obligation buttressed by a sufficiently substar.dal interest to warrant judicial protection" nor "assert[ed] it against a defendant having an adverse interest in contesting it." Help-U-Sell, Inc. v. Maine Real Estate Comm'n. 611 A.2d 981, 983 (Me. 1992) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lyons. 400 A.2d 349, 351 (Me. 1979)). Whether the plaintiff should have been summonsed by the Portland Police for possessing the marijuana plant is insufficient to establish a real controversy between him and the State of Maine. Mr. Dee also has not asserted his claim against a defendant having an adverse interest in contesting this claim.
The entry is
Plaintiff's motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment are DENIED.
Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
Dated at Portland, Maine this 10th day of April, 2001.
 Robert E. Crowlev y Justice, Superior Court
==========================================
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision No. Mem 02-1
Docket No. Cum-01-489
MICHAEL J. DEE v. STATE OF MAINE
Submitted on Briefs December 20, 2001
Decided January 16, 2002
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and ALEXANDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Michael J. Dee appeals from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the State of Maine entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Crowley, J.). Contrary to Dee's contentions, the court correctly determined that Dee is precluded from relitigating the constitutionality of the laws prohibiting possession of marijuana, see 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383 (1992 & Supp. 2001), and the arbitrary enforcement of that law, issues that he has raised in prior litigation. See Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 643-44 (Me. 1982); see also Cline v. Maine Coast Nordic, 1999 ME 72, 1 9, 728 A.2d 686, 688.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
============================================
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543
May 13, 2002
Mr. Michael J. Dee P.O. Box 2021 786 Roosevelt Trail #5 Windham, ME 04062-2021
Re: Michael J. Dee v. Maine No. 01-1370
Dear Mr. Dee: The Court today entered the following order in the above entitled case: The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Sincerely, * a *^*t iwaaSwS jL f 7 £fMUe# William K. Suter, Clerk .
====================================================
2006-2008