DAVID L. CONKEY, dba ALPHA CHEMICAL AND SCIENCE, DAVID WELLER dba TERRA SCIENCE, CAROL CONKEY, dba ALPHA CHEMICAL SUPPLY, BARNEY HOPKINS, Plaintiffs, vs. JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity, ROBERT BONNER, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, in his official capacity, GEORGE LEVIGNE, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration, in his official capacity and individually, GREG BRATTEN, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Deputy Sheriff of Washoe County, Nevada, in his official capacity and individually, PAUL GEORGE, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration, in his official capacity and individually, PETER JOHNSON, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration, in his official capacity and individually, JOHN E. COONCE, Supervisory Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration, in his official capacity and individually, MARIA CARTAGENA, Special Agent, Drug Enforcement Administration, in her official capacity and individually, DOROTHY NASH HOLMES, District Attorney for Washoe County, Nevada, in her official capacity and individually, VINCENT G. SWINNEY, Sheriff of Washoe County, Nevada, in his official capacity and individually, PAUL E. DONALD, Hazardous Materials Specialist, District Health Dpt., Washoe County, Nevada, in his official capacity and individually, and DOES 1-20, Defendants., 885 F. Supp. 1389
Summary
Plaintiffs contended that as long as they complied with federal laws governing the sale of HI, they were not susceptible to prosecution under Nevada's drug paraphernalia law, NRS § 453.560. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the claims alleged against the federal defendants under Bivens, which allowed actions for the violation of federal rights by federal officials. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin future criminal prosecution of the seller because the complaint failed to adequately specify the declaration sought, plaintiffs other than the seller lacked standing to claim the injunction, and no actual case or controversy was presented because there was no threat of such future prosecution. However, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent they sought qualified immunity for violation of the seller's due process rights. The HI was not per se contraband at the time it was seized and destroyed. Therefore it ...