Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 729
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`KURT ST. ANGELO,
`)
`
` Plaintiff,
`)
`)
`
`)
` vs.
`)
`
`)
`WILLIAM P. BARR, CURTIS T. HILL, JR.,
`)
`MARK SMOSNA, RYAN MEARS,
`)
`BRYAN K. ROACH, and
`KERRY J. FORESTALL,
`)
`
` )
` Defendants.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 1:19-cv-2754-JMS-DLP
`
`
`ORDER
`
`On July 5, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Kurt St. Angelo filed a Complaint against the United States
`
`of America (the “Government”) and the State of Indiana (the “State”), challenging the validity of
`
`various state and federal statutes related to the regulation of controlled substances. All of the
`
`Defendants in this case moved to dismiss Mr. St. Angelo’s claims, and on February 24, 2020, the
`
`Court granted Defendants' motions, dismissed Mr. St. Angelo's claims with prejudice, and entered
`
`final judgment. [Filing No. 76; Filing No. 77]. On March 10, 2020, Mr. St. Angelo filed a Motion
`
`to Alter or Amend Judgment, [Filing No. 78], which is ripe for the Court's review.
`
`I.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A "district court possesses the power . . . to alter or amend a judgment after its entry." Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 59(e) 1946 advisory committee notes (1946)3. Relief under Rule 59(e) is an
`
`"extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case." Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433,
`
`442 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008)). Rule 59
`
`motions are for the limited purpose of "correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing]
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 730
`
`newly discovered evidence." Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir.
`
`1987) (citation and quotation omitted). "A 'manifest error' is not demonstrated by the
`
`disappointment of the losing party. It is the 'wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
`
`recognize controlling precedent.'" Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.
`
`2000) (quoting Sedtrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). A Rule 59(e)
`
`motion "does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly
`
`does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have
`
`been presented to the district court prior to the judgment," United States v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562,
`
`568 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th
`
`Cir. 2000)), nor may a party use Rule 59(e) to "rehash previously rejected arguments," Vesely v.
`
`Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`
`Mr. St. Angelo originally filed a Complaint against the Government and the State. [Filing
`
`No. 1.] The State responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
`
`and for failure to state a claim on August 23, 2019. [Filing No. 15.] In response, Mr. St. Angelo
`
`filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts #8-10 of his Complaint, [Filing No. 18], and a Motion to Join
`
`the Indiana Attorney General and the United States Attorney General as defendants, [Filing No.
`
`20]. Mr. St. Angelo later filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint, [Filing No. 30], and a Motion
`
`to Join Four Additional Defendants: Bryan Mears (Marion County Prosecutor), Kerry J. Forestal
`
`(Marion County Sheriff), Bryan K. Roach (Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Chief),
`
`and Mark Smosna (President of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy), in their official capacities, [Filing
`
`No. 32]. On October 24, 2019, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
`
`and for failure to state a claim. [Filing No. 33.] The Court granted Mr. St. Angelo's Motion to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 731
`
`Amend his Complaint, [Filing No. 37], and denied as moot his Motion to Add Four Additional
`
`Defendants, [Filing No. 38]. Ultimately, Mr. St. Angelo's Amended Complaint asserted claims
`
`against the following Defendants: William P. Barr, Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Mark Smosna, Ryan Mears,
`
`Ryan K. Roach, and Kerry J. Forestal. [Filing No. 37 at 1.]
`
`
`
`In his Amended Complaint, Mr. St. Angelo challenged various statutes that regulate
`
`controlled substances. [Filing No. 37 at 1-2.] It was his position that those state and federal
`
`statutes are invalid, and he asserted the following claims:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Count #1 – Indiana's Delegated Arrest Authority Over Controlled Substances is
`Unconstitutional;
`
`• Count #2 – Indiana’s Penalty Statutes at I.C. § 35-48-Chapter 4 Are Ineffectual,
`Unenforceable, and False;
`
`• Count #3 – Indiana's Penalty Statutes at I.C. § 35-48-Chapter 4 Are
`Unconstitutional;
`
`• Count #4 – U.S. Drug Prohibitions Are Inapplicable in Indiana and Are Applicable
`Only in the Federal Areas;
`
`• Count #5 – Plaintiff Has a Natural Right in Indiana to Cultivate Marijuana for His
`Own Use;
`
`• Count #6 – Plaintiff Has a Legal Right to Possess Drugs in the Federal Areas,
`Including on Ships and Aircraft; and,
`
`• Count #7 – The Judicial Use Within Indiana of the Police Power of Prohibition
`Against Drug Possession and Interstate Drug Commerce Deprives Plaintiff and
`Other U.S. Citizens of Their Natural Right to a Republican Form of Government.
`
`
`[Filing No. 37 at 1-2.]
`
`
`
`Mr. St. Angelo asserted that the cited statutes are unconstitutional when read in conjunction
`
`with each other because: (1) they delegate arrest authority "over subject matter that is not criminal
`
`and that is not subject to arrest," [Filing No. 37 at 9]; (2) "only malum in se behavior constitutes a
`
`crime or criminal case within Indiana under the U.S. and Indiana constitutions," [Filing No. 37 at
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 732
`
`10]; (3) people have a "natural right" to possess controlled substances, [Filing No. 37 at 10]; and
`
`(4) dealing controlled substances without Indiana or U.S. administrative permissions is a
`
`regulatory violation, not a criminal matter that makes a person subject to arrest, [Filing No. 37 at
`
`10]. Mr. St. Angelo alleged that end users of controlled substances—whom he called "ultimate
`
`users"—"may 'lawfully possess' these drugs for their own use and use of their households." [Filing
`
`No. 37 at 11.] He also asserted that dealing drugs is an activity that is "subject to the police power
`
`of regulation, and is not subject to arrest under the police power of prohibition." [Filing No. 37 at
`
`11-12.] Mr. St. Angelo argued that drug dealers have rights to administrative due process. [Filing
`
`No. 37 at 13.] Mr. St. Angelo contended that "all persons who manufacture, distribute or dispense
`
`controlled substances within Indiana are regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and
`
`the Indiana Board of Pharmacy." [Filing No. 37 at 24.] In his Amended Complaint, he sought
`
`declaratory and injunctive relief, [Filing No. 37 at 1], including the "release from custody [of] all
`
`people incarcerated as the result of these unconstitutional provisions or unlawful enforcement" and
`
`"the expunging of the pertinent arrest and criminal records of victims of false arrest." [Filing No.
`
`37 at 20.]
`
`All of the Defendants filed motions to dismiss Mr. St. Angelo's claims, which were granted
`
`by the Court on February 24, 2020. [Filing No. 76.]
`
`In its Order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court first considered whether it
`
`had jurisdiction to address the merits of Mr. St. Angelo's claims, and it addressed the threshold
`
`jurisdictional question of whether he had standing to sue. [Filing No. 76 at 11.] The Court
`
`concluded that Mr. St. Angelo did not have standing because he did not make "any allegations
`
`regarding: (1) how he has been actually injured by the statute[s]; (2) how the injury can be fairly
`
`traced to the conduct of the Defendants; or (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 733
`
`decision from this Court." [Filing No. 76 at 13 (citing Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547
`
`(2016).] The Court determined that Mr. St. Angelo's alleged injuries were hypothetical and,
`
`therefore, could not form the basis for Article III standing. [Filing No. 76 at 13.] In ruling that
`
`Mr. St. Angelo lacked standing, the Court also noted that "arrest and prosecution for drug crimes
`
`are not 'invasion[s] of a legally protected interest.'" [Filing No. 76 at 13 (quoting Lujan v.
`
`Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)) (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 455
`
`(1974) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005) (where the Supreme Court acknowledged
`
`that "the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole
`
`exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research
`
`study")).] The Court explained that although dismissal of a complaint for lack of standing is
`
`usually without prejudice, Harris v. Quinn, 656 F.3d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 2011), the dismissal of Mr.
`
`St. Angelo's claims would be with prejudice because he had already had the opportunity to amend
`
`his Complaint after being put on notice of the issues regarding Article III standing, and his
`
`Amended Complaint did not demonstrate that he had standing to bring his lawsuit. [Filing No. 76
`
`at 14-15.]
`
`III.
`DISCUSSION
`
`In his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Mr. St. Angelo asks the Court to vacate its
`
`
`
`dismissal with prejudice and instead enter a dismissal without prejudice. [Filing No. 79 at 1.] He
`
`alleges, again, that 21 U.S.C. § 822(c) provides a constitutional right for private citizens as
`
`"ultimate users" to "lawfully possess" controlled substances, and that his arguments in support of
`
`this position were not rebutted by Defendants and were not mentioned by the Court in its February
`
`24, 2020 Order. [Filing No. 79 at 1-2.] Mr. St. Angelo argues that the Court's Order did not
`
`address the merits of his claims—specifically, "the existence of 21 U.S.C. § 822(c) and [his]
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 734
`
`arguments about separations of power in the republican form of government." [Filing No. 79 at
`
`2.] He then reiterates his arguments set forth in his briefs opposing Defendants' motions to dismiss.
`
`[Filing No. 2-13.] Mr. St. Angelo concludes his brief by stating, "[b]ecause this Court has not
`
`addressed the merits of Plaintiff's constitutional claims, and because its Order does not discuss or
`
`mention the U.S. statutes or constitutional provisions upon which Plaintiff relies, such as 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 822(c) and U.S. Const. amend. XIII, then Plaintiff prays that this Court will vacate its dismissal
`
`with prejudice, and to instead enter a dismissal without prejudice to Plaintiff's future assertion of
`
`his yet unexamined an unadjudicated constitutional rights." [Filing No. 79 at 13.]
`
`
`
`In its response, the Government asserts that Mr. St. Angelo's Rule 59(e) motion fails
`
`because he "does not identify any newly discovered evidence relevant to this suit," and he "cannot
`
`show that this Court's decision was a manifest error of law." [Filing No. 80 at 3.] The Government
`
`contends that the Court correctly pointed out that the Supreme Court acknowledged that the
`
`possession of marijuana is a criminal offense, and Mr. St. Angelo has not shown that this Court
`
`"overlooked binding precedent or otherwise committed legal error by not engaging in his other
`
`rambling theories. . . . " [Filing No. 80 at 3.] The Government maintains that the Court properly
`
`dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice because Mr. St. Angelo has had ample opportunity to attempt
`
`to plead viable claims. [Filing No. 80 at 4.]
`
`
`
`In their response, Chief Roach and Sheriff Forestal argue that Mr. St. Angelo's motion
`
`merely "rehashes rejected arguments and faults the Court for ruling on the Defendants' motions
`
`without addressing his tangents," rather than establishing that the Court committed a manifest error
`
`of law or fact or that newly discovered evidence precluded the entry of judgment in this case.
`
`[Filing No. 81 at 1.] Chief Roach and Sheriff Forestal contend that the Court correctly determined
`
`that Mr. St. Angelo lacked standing and, therefore, the Court did not have jurisdiction. [Filing No.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 735
`
`81 at 1-2.] They cite several cases supporting dismissal with prejudice when a suit is frivolous or
`
`is otherwise intended to harass, and they argue that Mr. St. Angelo's motion demonstrates that any
`
`attempts to amend his complaint will be futile. [Filing No. 81 at 2.]
`
`
`
`Mr. Hill, Mr. Smosna, and Mr. Mears also oppose Mr. St. Angelo's motion and argue that
`
`the Court's dismissal with prejudice was proper because he "has failed to establish standing in two
`
`different complaints and against eight different defendants." [Filing No. 82 at 3.] They also note
`
`that Mr. St. Angelo has not demonstrated that his claims could survive in any other forum. [Filing
`
`No. 82 at 3.]
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. St. Angelo did not file a reply brief.
`
`The crux of Mr. St. Angelo's motion is that the dismissal with prejudice should be vacated
`
`because the Court did not address the merits of his constitutional claims nor mention the federal
`
`statutes or constitutional provisions upon which he relies. However, as the Court explained in its
`
`Order, it cannot address the merits of a case if the plaintiff lacks standing, as standing is "the
`
`threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit."
`
`[See Filing No. 76 at 11 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).] Finding that Mr.
`
`St. Angelo lacked standing because he has not suffered an injury in fact, see Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at
`
`1547, the Court did not delve into considering Mr. St. Angelo's arguments about the republican
`
`form of government and the application of federal and state statutes. The Court's dismissal with
`
`prejudice followed precedent and was proper because Mr. St. Angelo had the opportunity to rectify
`
`his lack of standing, but he failed to do so, and any further attempt to do so would be futile. See
`
`Harris v. Quinn, 656 F.3d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting a complaint may be dismissed with
`
`prejudice for lack of standing where "it appears beyond a doubt that there is no way the plaintiff's
`
`grievance could ever mature into justiciable claims"); see also Georgakis v. Ill. State Univ., 722
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02754-JMS-DLP Document 83 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 736
`
`F.3d 1075, 1078 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[A] suit that either is frivolous or, though it is outside the court's
`
`jurisdiction for some other reason, intended to harass, can justifiably be dismissed with prejudice
`
`to avoid burdening the court system with a future suit that should not be brought—anywhere.").
`
`In his Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment, Mr. St. Angelo has not demonstrated that the Court
`
`committed a manifest error of law or fact, nor has he presented newly discovered evidence
`
`requiring reconsideration. Having found that Mr. St. Angelo has not presented any grounds under
`
`Rule 59(e) to set aside or vacate the Court's entry of final judgment, [Filing No. 77], the Court
`
`DENIES Mr. St. Angelo’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, [Filing No. 78].
`
`IV.
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. St. Angelo's Motion to Alter or Amend
`
`Judgment, [78].
`
`The Court notes that arguments that it has already considered and rejected “should be
`
`directed to the court of appeals.” United States v. ITT Educ. Servs., 2012 WL 266943, at *8 (S.D.
`
`Ind. Jan 30, 2012). Mr. St. Angelo has exhausted his avenues for relief in this Court, and any
`
`future filings that challenge the decisions in this action should be directed to the Court of
`
`Appeals.
`
`Distribution via ECF to all counsel of record
`
`Distribution via U.S. Mail to:
`
`Kurt St. Angelo
`1304 N. Gladstone Avenue
`Indianapolis, IN 46201
`
`8
`
`