T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M O N TA N A CA REG I V ERS A SSO CI A TI O N , LLC. ; M CM C A R E G I V E R S , I N C . ; R A N D Y M. L E I B E NG UT H; F OU R S E AS ON S GA R DE NING ; L UK E MUL VA UG H; P AU L S C HMI DT ; E I GH T HE L P I NG CE NTER S AND HELP I NG CE NTER F OU ND AT I ON S ; AA R ON DU R B AN ; M ON TANA CANN ABI S; SALT S P R I NG S , L L C ; S L E E P I NG GI AN T CARE GI VERS , I NC. ; CHRI ST OPHER W . W I LL I AM S; OU TL AW HI LL HEALTH SUST AI NA BI LI TY I NSTI TUTE ; J OH N K EVI N M OO RE , P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. T HE UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A; E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l; MI C HA E L W. C OT T E R ; DE A S P E C I AL AG E NT WE S L E Y K S MI T H; J OH N D O ES 1 - 1 0 ; U N KN O W N D EA , A TF, AN D FBI AG ENTS AN D O FF I CI AL, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 35110 D . C . N o . 9 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 0 7 4 - D WM ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED MA Y15 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 2 A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana D ona l d W . M ol l oy , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M ay7, 2013 ** P ort l and, O r e gon B efo re: G O O D W IN , R E IN H A R D T , an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A p p e llan ts M o n tan aC a r e g iv e r s A s s o c ia tio n , L L C e t a l. ( “ M ont ana C a r e gi ve r s ” ) appe a l the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of the i ra m e nde d c om pl a i nt al l egi ng vi ol at i on s of thei r F ou rth, F i fth, N i nth, and T enth A m endm entri gh t s, as w el l as a B i ven s cl ai m agai nstfe dera l offi ci al s f or the al l eged const i tut i on al v i o l a t i o n s . We r e v i e w de nov o the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i nt p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e du r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . W . R ad i o Servs . C o. v. Q w es t C or p. , 6 7 8 F. 3 d9 7 0 , 9 7 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) . W e a f f i rm. 1. A ppe l l a nt s ’ a s s e rt i on tha tthe C ontr ol l e d S ubs t anc e s A c t( “ C S A ” ) , 21 U . S . C . § 801 e t

s e q. , e xc e e de d C ongr e s s ’ c om m e r c e pow e ri s f or e c l os e d bythe S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n G on zales v. R ai ch (R ai ch I) , 545 U . S . 1 ( 2005) . T he re gu l at i on of m ar i

j uana un der the C S A i s “ square l y w i thi n C on gres s’ com m er ce p o w e rb e c au s e p r o du c tio n o f th e c o m m o d ity. . . h a s as ub s tan tia l e f f e c t o n s up p ly3

and d em and i n the nat i on alm arketfor thatcom m od i ty. ” I d. a t 1 9 ; s e e al

s o i d. at 2 5 ( n o tin g th a t “th e a c tiv itie s r e g u la te db yth e C S A a r e q u in te s s e n tia lly eco n o m i c”). M o n t an a C an n ab i s In du stry, p art i cip at i n g as A m i c us C ur i ae in s upportof

M ont a naC a r e gi ve r s ’ appe a l , a r gue s tha tw e s houl d r e e xa m i ne the “s ub s tan tia l e f

f e c ts ” d o c tr in e . W e m ay n o td o so , as w e are b o u n db y R ai c h I, a “d ir e c tlyc o n tr o l[ lin g ]” d e c is io n b yth e S up r e m e C o u rt. A gos t i niv . Fe l ton , 521 U . S . 20 3, 23 7 (19 97 ). 2. “ [ I ] f C ongr e s s a c t s unde rone of i t s e num e r a t e d pow e r s , the r e c an be no vi ol at i on of the T enth A m endm ent . ” R ai ch v. G on zales (R ai ch II ) , 500 F . 3d 850, 867 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni ted States v. Jones , 23 1 F . 3d 50 8, 51 5 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ) ; see a l

so U ni te d States v . J

i ni an , — F .3 d— , 2 0 1 3 W L 1 1 9 8 0 8 6 , a t * 1 1 ( 9 th C i r. M ar . 26 , 20 13 ). T hatconcl usi on “ appl i es re gardl es s of w hether the fe dera l leg islati o n d isp lace s law s e n ac tedu n d erth e S tates’ ‘p o li ce p o w er s.’” H ode l v . V a. Su rf ace Mi n. an d R ec lam at i on A ss ’n, Inc. , 4 5 2 U .S . 2 6 4 , 2 9 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; see a l so U ni ted States v. C om stock , 13 0 S . C t . 19 49 , 19 62 (201 0). 3 . M o n tan aC a r e g iv e r s ’ N in th A m e n d m e n t c la im f a ils f o rs im ilarr e a s o n s .

“ [ T ] he N i nth A m e ndm e nt‘ ha s notbe e n i nt e rpr e t e d a s i nde pe nde nt l ys e c ur i ng a ny const i tut i on alri gh t s f

or pu rposes of m aki ng ou ta c on st i tut i on alvi ol at i on . ’ ” San D i ego Cnt

y . G un R i

ght s C om m . v . R e no , 98 F . 3d 1121, 1125 ( 9th C i r . 1996)4

( quot i ng Scho w engerdt

v. U ni ted States , 9 4 4 F. 2 d4 8 3 , 4 9 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . So l ong a s C ongr e s s a c t s pur s ua ntt o a n e num e r a t e d pow e r , a nd doe s note xc e e d a “s p e c if ic lim ita tio n ” o n th a t p o w e r , an “o b je c tio n . . . th a t th e e x e r c is e o f [ th a t] p o w er i n fri n g es up o n ri g h t s serv edb y th e n i n th an dt en th am en d m en t s . . . m u st fa i l . ” Ba r to n v . C. I

. R. , 737 F . 2d 822, 823 ( 9th C i r . 1984) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . M ont ana C ar egi vers do no tal l ege thatthe go vernm ent ’ s e nforcement of the C S A exce eded a n ys u c h “s p e c ia l lim ita tio n .” 4. N o ris th e r e a n ym e r it to M o n tan aC ar e g iv e r s ’ a r g u m e n t th a t th e F if th a nd N i nth A m e ndm e nt s t oge the rpr ot e c taf unda m e nt a l r i ghtt o c ul t i va t e m ar i j uana fo r m ed i cal p u rp o ses. T h atarg u m en ti s sq u arel y fo recl o sedb y R ai ch II, w hi ch re j ec t ed the no t i on that“ the D ue P roce ss C l ause em brac es a r i gh tt o m ake a l i f e - s hapi ng de c i s i on on aphy s i c i an’ s a dvi c e t o us e m e di c a l m ar i j uana . ” 500 F . 3d a t864. M ont a naC a r e gi ve r s do notdi r e c t l yc ha l l e nge tha thol di ng, w hi c h, i n any e v e n t, c o u ldb e o v e rtu rn e do n lyb yc a llin g f o re n b an c c o n s id e r a tio n . See U ni ted States v. P arke r , 6 5 1 F .3 d1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) .A m i c us M o n tan aC a n n ab is I n du s tryd o e s r a is e th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, 1 F i f th A m e ndm e ntpr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s , a nd B i v e ns c l a i m s . H ow e ve r , w e “ do no tre vi ew i ss ues r ai se d o nl y by an am i cus c uri ae . ” R ussi an R i ve r W ater shed P ro tect i o n C o m m . v. C i t y o f Sa n ta R o sa , 142 F . 3d 1136, 1141 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( c i t i ng Sw an v . P e te rs on , 6 F . 3d 13 73 , 13 83 (9th C i r. 19 93 )) . 5 5 . M o n tan aC a r e g iv e r s d o n o t c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f its F ou rth A m endm ent , F i fth A m endm entprocedural du e proces s, or B i v e ns cl ai m s. 1 T h o s e c la im s a r e th e r e f o r e w a iv e d . Gr e e n wo o d v . FA A , 28 F . 3d 97 1, 97 7 (9th C i r. 19 94 ). AF F I RME D.