Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01049/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

18cv1049-JAH (NLS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRED SOURCE SANCTUARY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Case No. 18cv1049-JAH (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court are Defendant City of San Diego’s (“Defendant”) motion 

to dismiss (Doc. No. 3) and motion for abstention (Doc. No. 4). The motions are fully 

briefed and unopposed. After review of the pleadings, and for the reasons set forth below, 

the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff Sacred Source Sanctuary (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 

seeking injunctive relief. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff asserts it is a religious group that considers 

cannabis its “central sacrament.” Id. at pg. 3. Plaintiff alleges that on or around February 

1, 2018 and April 18, 2018, the San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) went to Plaintiff’s 

property, detained members of Plaintiff’s organization, and seized marijuana. Id. Plaintiff 

Case 3:18-cv-01049-JAH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1049-JAH (NLS)

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

alleges that in April 2018, the City of San Diego notified Plaintiff that it was in violation 

of San Diego Municipal Code (“SDMC”) land use provisions. Id. at pg. 4. Plaintiff argues 

that these actions impede Plaintiff’s religious liberties. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff now seeks 

injunctive relief, litigation costs, and attorney’s fees. Id. at pgs. 8-9. On July 9, 2018, 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and motion for abstention. Doc. Nos. 3, 4. In its 

motion to dismiss, Defendant claims that SDPD seized Plaintiff’s marijuana because 

Plaintiff was selling marijuana from an illegal marijuana dispensary without proper 

certification and in violation of San Diego city regulations. Doc. No. 3-1 at pg. 5. In its 

motion for abstention, Defendant requests that this Court abstain from adjudicating this 

case as Defendant enforces local regulations. Doc. No. 4-1 at pg. 5. Defendant contends 

there are criminal proceedings pending in state court against members of Plaintiff’s 

organization that implicate important state interests. Id. at pgs. 11-12. Defendant argues 

that federal court action could enjoin the criminal proceedings or at the minimum, produce 

inconsistent judgments. Id. 

DISCUSSION

The Court will only address the issue of abstention.

1

 The Court infers, based upon 

the pleadings, members of Plaintiff’s organization are currently facing ongoing criminal 

proceedings. The Court finds any ruling regarding Plaintiff’s right to possess or distribute 

marijuana could impact the state criminal proceedings. As such, the complaint must be 

dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from consideration of Plaintiff’s

claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 

Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings 

absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. 

Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal 

policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”). 

 

1 Because the Court finds abstention is warranted, the Court will not address Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 3).

Case 3:18-cv-01049-JAH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1049-JAH (NLS)

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

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: (1) 

state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 

interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal 

issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 

2001). All three of these criteria appear to be satisfied here. At the time Defendant’s

motion for abstention was filed, members of Plaintiff’s organization were part of a criminal 

case in Superior Court of California. Doc. No. 4-1 at pg. 11. That criminal case “arises 

from the searches of Sacred Source Sanctuary of which Plaintiff complains in this matter.” 

Id. at pgs. 11-12. Further, the issue of “[w]hether the criminal defendants have a religious 

right to distribute marijuana of San Diego land use laws is the same issue to be decided by 

the criminal court and this claim.” Id. The Court finds there is no question that the state 

criminal proceedings involve important state interests. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to show

that the state courts do not provide it an adequate opportunity to raise its claims. Abstention 

is therefore required. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because 

this Court must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal proceedings 

pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2018 

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01049-JAH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3