Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00068-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON L RYLEE and JANET R.

RYLEE and SMILEY J. HARRIS

Plaintiff, No. 05-0068 DFL CMK P

vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action against state

and federal officials for alleged constitutional violations stemming from the seizure of plaintiffs’

“eleven hundred and seventy four marijuana plants,” which were allegedly for medicinal and

religious purposes. (See e.g. Am. Compl. at 19 (stating the number of plants seized.)) By order

filed on January 12, 2005, the court dismissed the first, second, third, fifth and sixth cause of

action in plaintiffs’ complaint and granted plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint. On

February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The complaint is currently before the

court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Also before the court is plaintiffs’ May

4, 2005 request for a default judgment. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 7
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

As an initial matter, the court denies plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment. 

The request is based on allegations that defendants failed to answer plaintiffs’ complaint in a

timely manner. However, plaintiffs’ amended complaint is only now being screened and was

never served on defendants. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is denied. 

Background

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that in August 2003, Trinity County

officials searched plaintiffs Vernon and Janet Rylee’s persons and property on the grounds that

plaintiffs were committing a felony, namely growing marijuana. (Am. Compl. at 9.) Criminal

charges stemming from the marijuana seizure were brought against the Rylees by the Trinity

County District Attorney. (Id.) Although the Rylees have presented a defense, the state criminal

charges against them are not yet resolved. (Id.) Plaintiffs further contend that, in October 2003,

the Rylees agreed to allow plaintiff Harris to use their land to cultivate his own medicinal

marijuana. (Id.) In January 2004, plaintiffs sent notice to various Trinity County officials of their

status of “seriously ill Californians” who were allowed to cultivate and use medicinal marijuana

pursuant to California State law. (Id. at 9-10.) On July 12, 2004, defendant Drug Enforcement

Agency (“DEA”) requested a search warrant for the Rylee’s property and later, pursuant to the

warrant, the DEA and Trinity County Sheriff’s deputies seized marijuana and other items,

including guns from plaintiffs. (Id.) Plaintiffs were not criminally charged as a result of the July

2004 seizure. (Id.) 

Discussion

The court must screen plaintiffs’ amended complaint to determine whether it is

legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims which are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. A claim is legally

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 7
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

1The causes of action in plaintiffs’ complaint all reference only the July 2004 search and

seizure of plaintiffs’ marijuana plants and other items, such as guns. As no criminal charges

stemmed from this seizure, plaintiffs’ claims are not barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994). However, any claims stemming from the August 2003 search and seizure by Trinity

County officials would be Heck barred, as plaintiffs have pending criminal charges as a result of

that seizure. 

3

frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may,

therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical

inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and

factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiffs’

favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for defendants’ actions which

allegedly violated their First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, violated the California State

constitution, constituted Fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and violated the

commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment.1 

In plaintiffs’ first cause of action, Smiley J. Harris alleges that defendants’ seizure

of his “three hundred and ninety-two marijuana plants” violated his right to religious freedoms. 

(Am. Compl. at 12.) The Free Exercise clause requires that one’s convictions be free from

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

governmental regulation, but there is no requirement that the conduct itself be free from

regulation. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885-86

(1990) ( stating the "right of free exercise of religion does not relieve an individual of the

obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the

law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)" and that "if

prohibiting the exercise of religion [is] merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and

otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.") Plaintiff Harris does

not allege that he belongs to any organized religious group which utilizes marijuana as part of its

ceremonies. In fact, plaintiff Harris alleges no affiliation with any church and does not describe

any of his religious rites. Plaintiff Harris alleges no facts which would support a finding of any

constitutional violation of his right to practice his religious beliefs. Id. He has failed to state a

cause of action under the First Amendment and is advised that this cause of action should not be

included in any future amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ third cause of action asserts a fraud claim under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 9. Rule 9 concerns pleading special matters and subpart (b) states that all averments

of fraud shall be stated with particularity. As such, Rule 9 describes how a litigant in a civil

action can bring a fraud claim. Liberally construing plaintiffs’ complaint, it appears that

plaintiffs are pleading that federal agents fraudulently stated to a magistrate judge that the federal

government had jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs appear to argue that the federal

agents should have known that the federal government had no jurisdiction over their property. 

As noted above, a court may dismiss a claim that has no arguable basis either in fact or in law. 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Even with a liberal construction, plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud

against the federal government based on a lack of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ property are based

on an indisputably meritless legal theory and must be dismissed. Plaintiffs are advised that they

should not include this case of action in any future amended complaint. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 4 of 7
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

2Plaintiffs have no seventh cause of action in their complaint; the causes of action jump

from the sixth to the eighth. For clarity’s sake, the court, as plaintiffs do in their complaint, 

refers to what would be the seventh cause of action as the eighth.

5

Plaintiffs’ second, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action are all based on their

contention that the federal government lacked the authority to regulate plaintiff’s “intrastate, noncommercial possession, use and/or cultivation of marijuana.” (Am. Compl. at 12, 16, 17 and 18.) 

The United States Supreme Court recently decided Gonzales v. Raich, ___S.Ct.___, 2005 WL

1321358 (June 6, 2005), which held that prohibition of intrastate growth of marijuana was

rationally related to regulation of interstate commerce in marijuana. Id. at *19. Therefore,

Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and

use of marijuana otherwise authorized by California’s Compassionate Use Act. Id. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ second, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action, which are based on

plaintiffs’ contention that Congress lacks the power to regulate the intrastate use and cultivation

of marijuana pursuant to California law are dismissed. In an abundance of caution, plaintiffs are

given leave to amend their fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action. However, their second cause

of action which is solely based on a violation of the commerce clause should not be included in

any amended complaint in light of the holding in Raich. 

Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action2 is a pendant California state constitutional

claim. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Trinity County, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors,

the Trinity County Sheriff’s Department, Craig Lorrac and unnamed sheriff’s deputies violated

provisions of the California state constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that defendants

should have known that seizing plaintiffs’ marijuana pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act

(“CSA”) violated plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the California state constitution. As the holding

in Gonzales v. Raich, 2005 WL 1321358 explicitly states that application of the CSA to intrastate

growers and users of marijuana for medicinal purposes as otherwise authorized by California

state law is permissible under Congress’ commerce clause powers. Id. at *18-19. Accordingly,

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

this claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, in an abundance of

caution, plaintiffs are given leave to amend this cause of action in light of Raich. 

The court finds that plaintiffs’ first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth , and eighth

causes of action should be dismissed. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their fourth, fifth,

sixth and eighth causes of action. Plaintiffs are cautioned that they should limit any amended

complaint to those claims the court has found sufficient or subject to amendment.

If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, plaintiffs must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of

official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Finally, as previously noted, plaintiffs may not base their

complaints on allegations that defendants application of the CSA to intrastate growers and users

of marijuana for medical purposes, as otherwise authorized by California state law, violated their

rights. 

In addition, plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiffs’ amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 6 of 7
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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment is denied;

2. Plaintiffs’ first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth causes of action are

dismissed;

3. Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth causes of

action; and 

4. Should plaintiffs desire to file an amended complaint, they must do so within

thirty days of the date of this order. The amended complaint must comply with the requirements

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bear the docket number assigned to this case, and be

labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiffs must file an original and two copies of the amended

complaint. 

DATED: June 22, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00068-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 06/27/05 Page 7 of 7