Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 18-cv-01699-GPG

RYAN GALLAGHER, Rev. “Sasha,”

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
KARL KRAMER,
CHRISTOPHER PAIRIER,
CYNTHIA COFFMAN,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Rev. Ryan “Sasha” Gallagher, currently resides in Fountain, Colorado.

On July 5, 2018, he submitted pro se a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

On July 10, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure certain designated

deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claim in this action. (ECF No. 3). Specifically,

Plaintiff was directed to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis on the court-approved form. Additionally, Plaintiff was directed to file

his complaint on the current court-approved form.

In response, on July 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File Electronically (ECF

No. 4) and a Complaint (ECF No. 5). On July 25, 2018, the Court ordered Mr.

Gallagher to cure deficiencies and file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). The Court

ordered Mr. Gallagher to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis

 
  1 
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5

motion on the court-approved form and to file an amended Complaint that included all of

defendants’ names in the caption, addresses for the defendants, and complied with

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On August 2, 2018, Mr. Gallagher submitted an in forma pauperis motion on the

court-approved form. (ECF No. 7). On August 6, 2018, he submitted an Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 9). In addition, subsequent to the Court’s July 25, 2018 Order,

Plaintiff submitted an additional twenty-nine documents to the Court. (See ECF Nos. 8,

10-18 and 20-28, and 30-39). None of the other filed documents are necessary for the

Court’s initial review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.1(a). Although Mr. Gallagher alleges that the Tenth Circuit “has the Complaint,” (see

ECF No. 21 at 1), he has not filed a Notice of Appeal. Further, there is no dispositive

order to appeal.

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss

the action if Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous or malicious, or fail to state a claim on which

relief may be granted. A legally frivolous claim is one in which the plaintiff asserts the

violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist or asserts facts that do not support

an arguable claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).

The Court must construe Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint liberally because he is

not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not

be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons

discussed below, this action will be dismissed.

 
  2 
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5

I. The Amended Complaint

In his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9), Mr. Gallagher asserts the following two

claims: (1) “1st Amendment Violation by C.D.R. employees,” and (2) “Asked to leave

based on Creed.” For relief, he requests the Court to “cause the CoDoR, MEA to create

Religious process, similar to the DEA’s, and to award Punative [sic] Damages, and Civil

Rights Vindication awards, and grant an exemption to our Temple.”

A. Claim One

In support of his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that he set up a meeting in October or

November of 2017 at the Colorado Department of Revenue in order to discuss “a

Religious exemption.” (ECF No. 9 at 4). When he arrived at the meeting, he was told

that they do “recreational and medical marijuana, not religious.” (Id.). When Plaintiff

explained that the DEA had a process to receive a religious exemption, Defendants Karl

Kramer and Christopher Pairier stated, “We are not the DEA” and acknowledged that

they were in violation of federal law. (Id.) Plaintiff states that his temple, the Shaivite

Temple, is Hindu. (Id.)

B. Claim Two

For his second claim, Plaintiff states that “[a]fter the events in Claim #1, [he] was

asked to leave and told [he] would be arrested if [he] did not leave, and no one would

read the Petition [he] had brought. There is probably video of this on their security

footage. (Karl Kramer & Christopher Pairier did this)[.]” (Id. at 5). According to Plaintiff,

he did leave and he has not yet received an exemption. He also alleges that “Cynthia

Coffman is Attorney General, and responsible for any Policy that caused either of these

claims.” (Id.)

 
  3 
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5

II. Analysis

In the Amended Complaint, Mr. Gallagher fails to allege specific facts

demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated. The fact that he has not

received a religious exemption from the State of Colorado to use illegal drugs does not

constitute a constitutional violation. Apparently the State of Colorado does not have a

religious exemption program. Despite not receiving an exemption, Mr. Gallagher makes

no allegations that the state or state actors have interfered with the practice of his

religion in anyway. Further, he fails to specify what drugs are involved in practicing his

religion and/or how they are used. Finally, the fact that state employees asked Mr.

Gallagher to leave their office does not constitute a constitutional violation. Therefore,

the Amended Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous because the asserted facts fail to

support an arguable claim.

Additionally, the Court warns Mr. Gallagher that his numerous unresponsive

filings submitted in this action (and his other seven pending actions) appear abusive of

the judicial system. "[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor

unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an

action that is frivolous or malicious." Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir.

1989) (citations omitted) (per curiam). "Federal courts have the inherent power to

regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions in

appropriate circumstances." Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007)

(citing Sieverding v. Colo. Bar. Ass’ n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006); Tripati,

878 F.2d at 351).

Specifically, injunctions restricting further filings are

appropriate where the litigant’ s lengthy and abusive history

 
  4 
Case 1:18-cv-01699-LTB Document 40 Filed 08/22/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5

is set forth; the court provides guidelines as to what the

litigant may do to obtain its permission to file an action; and
the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to oppose the
court’ s order before it is implemented.

Id.

A pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation will support an order enjoining a

litigant from filing any claims without first seeking prior leave of court. See Ketchum v.

Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992); Winslow v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 677- 78

(D. Colo. 1991); Colorado ex rel. Colo. Judicial Dep't v. Fleming, 726 F. Supp. 1216,

1221 (D. Colo. 1989). Therefore, Mr. Gallagher is warned that if he files new frivolous

actions or continues to file additional unresponsive documents, he will be subject to

sanctions.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and this action are

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 22nd day of August , 2018.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

 
  5