Brinkmeyer v. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 8, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05661
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TODD BRINKMEYER, CASE NO. C20-5661 BHS 11 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 12 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD, 13 Respondent. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Todd Brinkmeyer’s 16 (“Brinkmeyer”) motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 6. 17 On June 8, 2020, Brinkmeyer filed a petition for declaratory judgment in Thurston 18 County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-2. Brinkmeyer seeks a 19 declaration that Respondent Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board’s (“LCB”) 20 residency requirements for certain individuals associated with licensed marijuana 21 businesses violate his Federal and state constitutional rights. Id. 22 1 On July 7, 2020, the LCB removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1. 2 On August 6, 2020, Brinkmeyer filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 3 6. On August 24, 2020, the LCB responded. Dkt. 11. On August 28, 2020, Brinkmeyer

4 replied. Dkt. 14. 5 “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 6 court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “It is to be presumed that a 7 cause lies outside [a federal court’s] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing 8 the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

9 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). 10 In this case, the LCB removed the matter to this Court and asserts that the Court 11 has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. 1. The Court, however, 12 sua sponte questions this assertion of jurisdiction because Brinkmeyer requests relief in 13 violation of federal law. Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) “to

14 conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled 15 substances.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12 (2005). Because marijuana is a 16 controlled substance under the CSA, Brinkmeyer is requesting that this Court declare 17 unconstitutional laws that prevent him from engaging in the business of cultivating a 18 controlled substance. As such, the Court questions its authority to declare this state law

19 unconstitutional, allowing Brinkmeyer to participate in violations of the CSA. Therefore, 20 the Court orders any party to show cause why this Court has jurisdiction over 21 Brinkmeyer’s claims. Failure to show adequate cause or otherwise respond by 22 1 September 14, 2020 will result in dismissal of the federal claims without prejudice and 2 remand of the state law claims. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated this 8th day of September, 2020. A 5 6 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 7 United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22