===============================
1995
Federal Court ORDER Civil No. 95-29-P-H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
MICHAEL DEE, )
PLAINTIFF )
v. ) Civil No. 95-29-P-H
JANET RENO, Attorney General )
of the United States, et al., )
DEFENDANTS )
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
The plaintiff Michael Dee has sued the Attorneys General of the United States and the State of Maine seeking a declaratory judgment that federal and state marijuana laws are unconstitutional. The defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings and the plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. I conclude that Dee is not entitled to the relief he seeks and direct that judgment be entered for the defendants.
The defendants argue that Dee lacks standing to bring his lawsuit because he is not facing threatened or actual injury that is real and immediate. In response, Dee has filed with the court a portion of a marijuana plant, presumably one that he has grown. The assertions in the pleadings, together with the marijuana, probably furnish a basis for at least the issuance of a search warrant. Moreover, by virtue of the criminal cases that are prosecuted in this court and, most recently, a celebrated case in this court involving helicopter overflights searching for marijuana plants growing in rural Maine, Bowie v. Scopino. No. 93-317-P-H (D. Me. 1995), I am aware that federal and state authorities take marijuana growing and production seriously.
For these reasons, it would be disingenuous to deny that Dee is looking at actual or threatened injury in the form of criminal investigation/prosecution. On the other hand, it is also the case that law enforcement resources are limited and that priorities determine where enforcement activities should be directed. Thus, criminal prosecution against Dee may or may not be imminent, and the precise nature of any charges (possession, growing, trafficking, quantity, etc.) are all impossible to determine. In short, although Dee may legitimately fear some kind of criminal law enforcement activity directed against him, it is impossible to determine whether or when either federal or state authorities might press charges and what the nature of the resulting prosecution might be. It is, therefore, impossible to assess the constitutional issues.
Declaratory judgment is a discretionary remedy, see Wilton v. Seven Falls Co _ _ U.S._ _, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 132 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1995). It is particularly inappropriate here. Generally speaking, federal and state marijuana laws have been upheld against constitutional attack and have been described as raising matters of legislative policy for elected representatives ..to determine. .See e.g... United States v. Maas. 551 F. Supp. 645 (D.N.J 1982): 'National Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell. 488 F. Supp. 123 (D.D.C. 1980) In light of that case law and given the fact that this is a declaratory judgment action with nonspecific law enforcement activity to assess I conclude that declaratory relief is inappropriate. I GRANT judgment on the pleadings to the defendants and DENY summary judgment to the plaintiff.
So ORDERED.
Dated at Portland, Maine this 11th day of September, 1995

D. Brock Hornby
United States District Judge
=========================================
D. Brock Hornby United States District Judge