Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04264/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04264-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MULTI DENOMINATIONAL MINISTRY OF

CANNABIS AND RASTAFARI, INC, et

al,

Plaintiffs,

v

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al,

Defendants. /

No C–06-4264 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to

prevent defendants from interfering with the exercise of their

religion, which involves the use of marijuana. Doc #1. On

February 2, 2007, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss

under FRCP 12(b)(6) and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended

complaint alleging a claim under the RFRA against federal

defendants by March 20, 2007. Doc #64 at 22. 

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-04264-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In their first amended complaint (FAC), Doc #66,

plaintiffs disregarded the court’s instructions and reasserted all

claims against all defendants. Apparently, plaintiffs were under

the impression that a failure to assert all dismissed claims would

bar appeal. Doc #81 at 2. Additionally, due to “time

constraints,” only one plaintiff (Womachka) was able to review and

sign the FAC. Doc #85, ¶ l. Finally, shortly after filing the

FAC, plaintiffs’ “legal committee chairman” Reverend Tom Brown

resigned from the Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and

Rastafari and requested that the court “excuse” him from the suit. 

Doc #82. 

In light of these events, plaintiffs have requested leave

to amend their complaint. Doc #85. Federal defendants do not

oppose plaintiffs’ request so long as the second amended complaint

only includes a RFRA claim against federal defendants in their

official capacity. Doc #86. 

In view of the unfocused character of the first two 

complaints, the court has serious reservations about granting

plaintiffs yet another opportunity to amend the complaint. But

with hope overcoming experience, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’

request for leave to amend the FAC and VACATES the hearing

scheduled for May 10, 2007, at 2:00 pm. Plaintiffs are granted

leave to amend their FAC to assert their RFRA claim against federal

defendants in their official capacity only. Plaintiffs may not

include other claims; nor may plaintiffs assert claims against

state and local defendants. 

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-04264-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Finally, plaintiffs are admonished to heed the court’s

instructions to narrow the scope of relief sought. In this regard,

a compendium of evidence is less helpful than clear and concise

allegations of facts that constitute elements of the claim in

question. Economical pleading is more likely to establish a prima

facie claim under the RFRA than many and verbose allegations. The

relevant legal standards are set forth in the court’s February 2,

2007, order. Plaintiffs shall file their second amended complaint

on or before May 18, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04264-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 3