Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Because plaintiff’s opposition contains no substantive argument, the court will construe

his motion for summary judgment as an opposition to defendants’ motion.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON KICZENSKI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2305 MCE GGH PS

vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s calendar was defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, filed June 29, 2005, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,1 filed July 5, 2005. 

In addressing the government’s motion, the court became aware of a case which

was not previously raised by the parties, Hemp Industries v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 357 F.3d

1012 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit held that because the Drug Enforcement Administration

(“DEA”) did not follow the correct procedures for scheduling a substance, it had no authority to

regulate drugs which were not scheduled. Id. at 1018. Specifically, the court found that the Final

Rules banning Cannabis plants which are not within the Controlled Substances Act’s (“CSA”)

definition of marijuana or which do not contain synthetic THC, could not be enforced. Id. In

other words, the DEA only has authority to enforce rules and regulations banning marijuana or

synthetic THC. 

This case appears to undercut the government’s position, and should have been

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

brought to the court’s attention by the government as it was published prior to the government’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, filed August 6, 2004. Hemp

Industries also appears to be on point with plaintiff’s initial position. In his complaint, plaintiff

alleged, “[t]he hemp plant is a different strain of cannabis with a different chemical-based

makeup, and contains no viable amounts of the chemical THC that exists in some of the other

strains of cannabis, and is of no end use value in the illegal (drug) trade.” Compl. at 16:22-24. 

In his opposition to defendants’ August, 2004 motion, plaintiff also raised the issue of the CSA’s

authority to regulate his activities because they “do not fall within the definition of this legitimate

category of legislative authority.” Oppo., filed September 10, 2004, at 2:17-21. Throughout this

opposition, plaintiff emphasized that growing hemp for utilitarian purposes was not intended to

be outlawed by the government’s ban on drugs. 

Therefore, the parties shall file briefing regarding the applicability of Hemp

Industries to this case, including: (1) its pertinence to this case, and (2) if it is pertinent, has not

plaintiff raised an issue of fact regarding the type of hemp seeds he is planning to grow and

whether they are exempt from the CSA. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be

decided upon submission of this briefing.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file simultaneous briefing by

November 21, 2005.

DATED: 10/28/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Kiczenski2305.frb.wpd

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2