West v. Holder
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77552
D.D.C.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Arthur S. West sued the U.S. Department of Justice and Washington State officials alleging federal involvement (principally the 2013 "Cole Memo") in Washington’s marijuana legalization violated numerous constitutional provisions, NEPA, and the APA.
- The Washington state defendants were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in August 2014.
- In February 2015 the District Court dismissed federal defendants for lack of Article III standing and as to nonreviewable prosecutorial discretion; West appealed and then filed a motion for reconsideration.
- West’s reconsideration submission relied on a broad set of documents he characterized as "new evidence," including local government minutes, state bill analyses, court orders, declarations, and out‑of‑state litigation materials.
- The court treated the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion (timely Rule 59(e) relief was unavailable), considered it despite the pending appeal, and evaluated claims under Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / causation and redressability | West argued new evidence shows concrete injuries from state legalization traceable to federal involvement (Cole Memo) and that judicial relief could redress them. | Federal defendants argued West still lacks Article III standing because injuries are speculative, not shown to be caused by defendants, and not redressable. | Denied — evidence is speculative or concerns others, lacks causal link and redressability; standing still absent. |
| Rule 60(b)(2) — newly discovered evidence | West claimed recently obtained documents and declarations were newly discovered and would change the outcome. | Defendants argued the materials were cumulative, preexisting, or not shown to be unavailable earlier and would not alter the standing analysis. | Denied — West did not show diligence or that evidence would probably change the result; much was cumulative. |
| Rule 60(b)(6) — extraordinary circumstances / clear error | West asserted legal errors: misapplication of NEPA, failure to treat Cole Memo as abdication of statutory duty, recognition of covert federal participation, and redressability. | Defendants maintained prior rulings were correct: Cole Memo is prosecutorial guidance (not an abdication), NEPA does not apply, and no extraordinary circumstances exist to vacate judgment. | Denied — no extraordinary circumstances, no clear error or manifest injustice; claims rehashed prior arguments. |
| Reviewability of prosecutorial discretion (Cole Memo) | West contended the Cole Memo effectively changed enforcement policy so dramatically it could be reviewed. | Defendants argued the Cole Memo is prosecutorial guidance allocating enforcement priorities and is presumptively unreviewable. | Denied — Cole Memo is protected prosecutorial discretion; it does not alter enforcement authority and is not judicially reviewable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (district court divested of control after notice of appeal)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (prosecutorial discretion presumptively unreviewable)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (procedural rights alone do not establish standing absent concrete interest)
- Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (Rule 60(b) relief to accomplish justice; sparingly used)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (Rule 60(b) relief when party deprived of reasonable opportunity to make a defense)
- Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (not all joint tortfeasors must be joined in one suit)