Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01802/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01802-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Civil Action No. 03-1802 JF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN JOSE DIVISION)

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 03-1802 JF

)

v. )

) JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Attorney General of the United States; )

MICHELE LEONHART, )

Acting Administrator of the )

Drug Enforcement Administration; and )

R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE, )

Director of the Office of )

National Drug Control Policy, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties

hereby jointly stipulate to the dismissal of this action without prejudice, as follows:

1. On October 19, 2009, the United States Department of Justice issued a

Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to selected United States

Attorneys regarding Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use

of Marijuana (hereinafter “Medical Marijuana Guidance”). This Medical Marijuana

Guidance is incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit 1. As a result of the issuance of the

Medical Marijuana Guidance, plaintiffs agree to dismiss this case without prejudice. 

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 225 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Civil Action No. 03-1802 JF - 2 -

2. The parties further stipulate and agree that if Defendants withdraw, modify, or

cease to follow the Medical Marijuana Guidance, this case may be reinstituted in its present

posture on any Plaintiffs’ motion, although if any Plaintiff seeks to reinstitute this case,

Defendants reserve the right to argue that they have not withdrawn, modified, or ceased to

follow the Medical Marijuana Guidance, and that this case is moot. The parties further

stipulate and agree that any non-jurisdictional defenses challenging the timeliness of the

Plaintiffs’ reinstitution of this lawsuit, including laches, will be based solely on the delay, if

any, after the alleged change of policy on which the Plaintiffs base the reinstitution of this

lawsuit. The parties further stipulate and agree that all prior rulings shall remain as law of

the case, with the parties retaining their rights to appeal any of those rulings.

3. All parties will bear their own costs and fees. 

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FOR THE DEFENDANTS

/s/ Allen Hopper /s/ Mark T. Quinlivan 

ALLEN HOPPER MARK T. QUINLIVAN

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Assistant U.S. Attorney

1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333 John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse

Santa Cruz, CA 95062 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200

(831) 471-9000 Boston, MA 02210

e-mail: ahopper@aclu.org (617) 748-3606

e-mail: mark.quinlivan@usdoj.gov

IT IS SO ORDERED

________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 225 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 5
USDOJ Seal 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

The Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 

October 19,2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS 

FROM: David W. Ogden - Signature of David Ogden 

Deputy Attorney General 

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States 

Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana 

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States 

that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their 

substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting 

States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different 

guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform 

guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal 

enforcement priorities. 

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances 

Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal 

distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue 

to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the 

importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in 

the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels. 

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited 

investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with 

"plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. 

In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are "invested by statute and delegation from 

the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." Id. This 

authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance. 

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the 

disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority 

in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's 

investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a 

general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on 

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 225 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 5
Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys Page 2 

Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana 

individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws 

providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer 

or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen 

consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance 

with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient 

use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that 

unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the 

Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations 

inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement 

should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core 

enforcement priorities. 

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in 

clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug 

trafficking activity of potential federal interest: 

• unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms; 

• violence; 

• sales to minors; 

• financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of 

state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or 

excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law; 

• amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law; 

• illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or 

• ties to other criminal enterprises. 

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is 

not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. 

Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not 

expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this 

memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, 

including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of 

marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not "legalize" 

marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any 

privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or 

witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous 

compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense 

to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a 

guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. 

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 225 Filed 01/25/10 Page 4 of 5
Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys Page 3 

Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana 

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable 

basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or 

distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance 

preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance 

with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise 

serves important federal interests. 

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case 

basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, 

the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement 

authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution. 

cc: All United States Attorneys 

Lanny A. Breuer 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division 

B. Todd Jones 

United States Attorney 

District of Minnesota 

Chair, Attorney General's Advisory Committee 

Michele M. Leonhart 

Acting Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

H. Marshall Jarrett 

Director 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

Kevin L. Perkins 

Assistant Director 

Criminal Investigative Division 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Case 5:03-cv-01802-JF Document 225 Filed 01/25/10 Page 5 of 5