MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2014 ME 106 Docket: Cum

- 13

- 496 Submitted

On B riefs : May 29 , 201 4 Decided: August 1 4 , 2014 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER , SILVER , GORMAN, and JABAR , JJ.
MICHAEL J. DEE

v. STATE OF M AINE

PER CURIAM [¶1] Michael J. Dee appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Wheeler, J. ) dismissing with prejudice his complaint for a judgment declaring that provisions in several Maine marijuana statutes

— 22 M.R.S. § 2 38 3 (1) (2013) (possession of marijuana), 17

- A M.R.S. § 1117 (1) (2013) ( cultivating marijuana), and 17

- A M.R.S. § 1106 (1

- A) (2013) (unlawful ly furnishing scheduled drug s )

— are unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he contends that the statutes violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment s of the United States Constitution

. See U.S. Const. amend s
. IV , XIV , § 1

. The court found that several Maine courts have already considered and rejected Dee ’s arguments , and determined that th e suit was frivolous

. We agree and affirm the judgment.2 [¶ 2 ] Since 1983, Dee has repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of marijuana proh ibitions in state and federal courts in Maine and elsewhere. 1 See State v. Dee , 2012 ME 26 , ¶ 2 n.1, 39 A.3d 42 (per curiam) (list ing cases) , cert. denied , --- U.S.

--- , 183 L. Ed. 2d 641, reh’g denied , --- U.S.

--- , 183 L. Ed. 2d 723 ; Dee v. State , 2007 WL 4698274 (Me. Super. June 25, 2007 ) ( compiling the histor y of Dee’s marijuana litigation in state and federal courts in Maine) , aff’d , Mem

- 07

- 208 (Dec. 13, 2007) ; Dee v. Laramie Cnty

. , 666 P.2d 957 (Wyo. 1983) (dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), overruled by Brown v. City of Casper , 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2011)

. In multiple insta nces, Maine courts have considered and rejected Dee’s arguments that marijuana laws violated his fundamental rights to property and liberty , his right to due process, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and his purported

1 In some of these actions , D ee challenged marijuana laws in response to the State’s actions in p rosecuting him for possession of marij uana. See, e.g. , State v. Dee, 2012 ME 26, 39 A.3d 42 , cert. denied , --- U.S.

--- , 183 L. Ed. 2d 641 , reh’g denied , --- U.S.

--- , 183 L. Ed. 2d 723 ; Dee v. State , 2001 WL 1715844 (Me. Super. Jan. 24, 2001) , aff’d , Mem

– 01

– 59 (June 26, 2001)

. In other cases, Dee filed, or sought to file, affirmative actio ns against the State urging courts to invalidate marijuana laws. Dee v. United States , 2009 WL 1149903 (D. Me. Apr. 28, 2009) (Kravchuk, Mag.); Dee v. United States , 241 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Me. 2003) ; Dee v. United States , Civ. No. 98

- CV

- 37

- P

- H (D. Me. May 26, 1998); Citizens for Restoration of Constitutional Rights v. Reno , Civ. No. 97

- CV

- 229

- P

- H (D. Me. Aug. 11, 1997); Dee v. Me. Att’y Gen. , Civ. No. 96

- CV

- 274

- B (D. Me. Feb. 25, 1997); Dee v. Reno , Civ. No. 95

- 29

- P

- H (D. Me. Sept. 11, 1995), aff’d , 82 F.3d 403 (1st Cir. ) ( unpublished table decision ), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 873 , reh’g denied , 519 U.S. 1001 (1996) ; Dee v. State , 2007 WL 4698274 (Me. Super. June 25, 2007) , aff’ d , Mem

- 07

- 208 (Dec. 13, 2007), cert . denied , 555 U.S. 823 (2008) ; Dee v. State , 2001 WL 1708834 (Me. Super. Apr. 12, 2001) , aff’d , Mem

- 02

- 1 (Jan. 16, 2002) ; Dee v. State , CUMSC

- CV

- 99

- 690 (Me. Super. Ct. , Cum. Cnty. Apr. 25, 2000), aff’d , Mem

- 00

- 132 (Oct. 27, 2000); Dee v. Att’y Gen. , CUMSC

- CV

- 97

- 763 (Me. Super. Ct. , C um. Cnty . July 6 , 1998), aff’d , Mem

- 99

- 59 (Apr. 30, 1999) ; Dee v. State , 177 P.3d 218 (Wyo. 2008) , reh’g denied , 177 P.3d 218 (Mar. 11, 2008), cert. denied , 555 U.S. 824 ; Dee v. Laramie Cnty. , 666 P.2d 957 (Wyo. 1983) (dismissin g for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), overruled by Brown v. City of Casper , 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2011)

.3 fundament al right to possess marijuana

. See , e.g. , Dee , 2012 ME 26 , ¶ ¶ 2

- 4, 39 A.3d 42 ; Dee, 2007 WL 4 698274 ; Dee v. State , 2001 WL 1715844 (Me. Super. Jan. 24, 2001) , aff’d , Mem

- 01

- 59 (June 26, 2001)

. The constitutional issues raised by Dee in the case now on ap peal are identical to iss ues that were determined in these judgment s
. [¶ 3 ] N otwithstanding Maine courts’ repeated determinations that Dee’s claims ha ve no legal merit and that the L egislature, not the judiciary, is the proper forum to address this issue, Dee has continued to bring duplicative actions for declaratory judgment

. See , e.g. , Dee , 2007 WL 4 698274 (“Dee’s only recourse in his quest to change the marijuana laws is to present his cause before the legislature .” ) ; Dee v. State , 2001 WL 1708834 (Me. Super. Apr. 12, 2001) (entering judgment on the pleadings against Dee ’ s suit based on collateral estoppel ), aff’d , Mem

- 02

- 1 (Jan. 16, 2002)

. I n 2007, the Superior Court enjoined Dee “from filing further lawsuits in Maine courts to challenge the constitut ionality of the State’s civil and criminal marijuana laws without prior approval from the
court.” Dee , 2007 WL 4 698274

. Ignoring this injunction, Dee did not request the court’s permission to file the present case until almost a month after his complaint was docketed. In light of the frivolous and duplicative nature of the suit and Dee’s failure to seek permission before commencing the action , the court acted well within its discretion in reject ing Dee’s request for approval to file suit and granting4 the State’s motion to dismiss his petition with prejudice. See M.R. Civ. P. 41(b)(2). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

On the briefs: Michael J. Dee , Pro se appellant Janet T. Mills, A t torney Genera l, and William R. Fisher, Asst. Atty . Gen., Office of the Attorney General, August, for appellee State of Maine

Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV

- 2013

- 289 FOR C LERK REFERECE ONLY