This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Medical Marijuana Program Act

James Michael Benno, Jessica Elaine Benno, Jacob Daniel Benno, Logan Wayne Benno, Marcia Jones, Dennis Peron, Brian Monterrozo, Richard Young, Charles B. McIntosh, Jessica Concha Solano, Nicholas Neal Bolton, Walter Carney, Jerilyn Carney, Josh Hancock v. Shasta County, California; Shasta County Sheriff's Department; Thomas Bosenko, in his capacity as Sheriff of Shasta County; Dale Fletcher; Tom Barner; Shasta County Code Enforcement; Shasta County Board of Supervisors; Lester Baugh; and Does 1 to 10

Published: Dec. 24, 2020 | Result Date: Nov. 29, 2020 |

Case number: 2:16-cv-01110-TLN-DMC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Troy L. Nunley

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jennifer M. McGrath
(Law Office of Jennifer M. McGrath)


Defendant

Jeffrey V. Dunn
(Best, Best & Krieger LLP)

Christopher M. Pisano
(Best, Best & Krieger LLP)


Facts

From 1997 to 2009, plaintiffs James Benno, Jessica Solano, Walter Carney and Jerilyn Carney began collectively cultivating medical marijuana on their properties. On December 13, 2011, Shasta County enacted an ordinance which allowed indoor and outdoor cultivation of marijuana. On January 28, 2014, Shasta County subsequently enacted an ordinance banning outdoor cultivation of marijuana. From 2013 to 2014 four discrete raids were performed on plaintiffs' properties where plaintiffs' medical marijuana plants were removed. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants Shasta County, California Shasta County Sheriff's Department, Shasta County Code of Enforcement Office and Shasta County Board of Supervisors claiming their constitutional rights were violated during a raid on plaintiffs' property.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants' seizure of plaintiffs' marijuana pants were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs contended that the improper taking of the marijuana plants were a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Shasta County Code of Enforcement Office and Shasta County Sheriff's Department were not proper parties to the cause of action because they are separate entities from Shasta County. Defendants also contended that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish any fundamental vested right that defendants infringed.

Result

The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint without leave to amend ruling that there is no fundamental right to cultivate marijuana.


#136260

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390