Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04267/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04267-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Dunn
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1

 Mr. Dunn dated his statement January 17, 2008 (a Thursday), but he did not file the statement

with the Court until five days later.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DUNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4267 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF

JANUARY 22, 2008

(Docket No. 21)

On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the State’s motion to dismiss and

giving Plaintiff Michael Dunn thirty days to file an amended complaint or his case would be

dismissed with prejudice. On January 22, 2008, Mr. Dunn filed with a court the following

statement1

:

The case was dismissed but an issue was not addressed -- can

the Fed Probation Dept force me to sign up for a state drug offender

program when by state law I have a physician[’]s prescription to grow

and possess marijuana? Congress has exceeded its authority under

Interstate Commerce Clause rendering the 10th Amend fluff.

Hope you have courage to address this -- reply requested!

Docket No. 21.

In his original complaint, Mr. Dunn did allege that he “has a physician[’]s prescription for

use of marijuana and § 11594 makes no allowance for this.” Compl. ¶ 5. However, he never alleged

Case 3:07-cv-04267-EMC Document 22 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 2
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

or even suggested in that complaint a Tenth Amendment or Commerce Clause violation. Therefore,

to the extent Mr. Dunn’s filing on January 22 is a motion to reconsider, the motion is denied.

To the extent Mr. Dunn intended his filing to be an amended complaint, the amended

complaint is untimely. Mr. Dunn had thirty days (i.e., until January 14, 2008) to file an amended

complaint, but he did not comply with this deadline. Nor has he provided any explanation as to why

he was not able to comply with that deadline. Nonetheless, even if the Court were to construe Mr.

Dunn’s notation as an amended complaint and allow it, despite its untimeliness, the Tenth

Amendment claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1

(2005), which held that Congress does have the constitutional power to prohibit the local cultivation

and use of marijuana in compliance with California law, which authorizes the use of marijuana for

medicinal purposes.

Accordingly, the Court hereby instructs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment and close

the file in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04267-EMC Document 22 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2