Stubblefield

Stubblefield v. Gonzales

Good Law
150 F. App'x 630
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 26, 2005No. 03-35602California839 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Leroy Stubblefield, Daniel Scott Russell and Clarence Van Dehey appeal the district court order dismissing their complaint seeking a declaration that the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., may not be enforced against them insofar as they grow, possess and use marijuana for medical treatment pursuant to the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (“OMMA”), O.R.S. §§ 475.300 et seq., and seeking an injunction so enjoining the enforcement of the CSA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review the district court’s order de novo. Decker v. Advantage Fund. Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not repeat it here except to the extent necessary for our disposition.

I.

Appellants advance first a statutory argument: that they are “ultimate user[s]” of marijuana as defined by the CSA and, thus, exempt from its provisions. This argument is twice flawed.

First, the CSA defines an “ultimate user” in relevant part as “a person who has lawfully obtained, and who [thereby] possesses, a controlled substance for his own use....” 21 U.S.C. §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.