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