IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

Transcription

1 0 0 THOMAS C. HORNE Attorney General Firm Bar No. 000 Kent Cattani, No. 000 Michael O Toole, No. 0 Liza-Jane Capatos, No. 00 Assistant Attorneys General Criminal Appeals Section West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 00- Telephone: (0) - liza-jane.capatos@azag.gov cadocket@azag.gov Attorneys for Defendant State of Arizona IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA CHARISE VOSS ARFA, a married woman, vs. Plaintiff, STATE OF ARIZONA, a governmental entity; JANET K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona in her official capacity; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (ADHS), an Arizona administrative agency; and WILLIAM HUMBLE, Director of ADHS in his official capacity, JOHN and JANE DOES I-X; XYZ CORPORATIONS I-X; BLACK and WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-X, Defendants. No. CV0 0 STATE OF ARIZONA S MOTION TO DISMISS (Honorable George Foster) Defendant the State of Arizona moves to dismiss Plaintiff s complaint requesting declaratory and injunctive relief because, inter alia, there is no justiciable controversy and a judgment or decree on the complaint would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. A.R.S.. Further, as discussed below, Plaintiff s contention that the definition of cannabis as defined in the Arizona Criminal Code is

2 0 0 unconstitutionally vague fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, the complaint should also be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ariz. R. Civ. P. (b). MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. In November 00, Arizona voters passed Proposition 0, an initiative measure identified as the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ( AMMA ). A.R.S. 0, et. seq. The AMMA decriminalizes under State law the possession and use of marijuana for certain explicitly delineated individuals and entities. Further, the AMMA strictly limits what actions are protected. Thus, only those who are operating in strict compliance with the AMMA are afforded its protections, and all Arizona criminal statutes relating to marijuana and cannabis, including A.R.S. 0 & 0, remain in effect. See, e.g., A.R.S. 0(E) (stating the AMMA does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal or other penalties for engaging in... [u]sing marijuana except as authorized by the AMMA). On March, 0, a search warrant was issued finding probable cause to search the home and person of Plaintiff... for a usable amount of cannabis, a narcotic drug, to include the extracted resin and cannabis which is now in solution. (Compl..) Law enforcement officers conducted a search on March, 0, and found and confiscated bottled liquid [c]annabis tincture labeled, Soccer Moms Tincture. (Compl. 0.) The confiscated cannabis tinctures have not been returned to Plaintiff. (Id.) II. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS. Under the Arizona Criminal Code, cannabis is defined, as follows: (a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin

3 0 0 extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. (b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol. A.R.S. 0(). Under the Arizona Criminal Code, marijuana is defined as follows: Marijuana means all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, from which the resin has not been extracted, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant. Marijuana does not include the mature stalks of such plant or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. A.R.S. 0(). Under the AMMA, a qualifying patient may possess [t]wo-and-one-half-ounces of usable marijuana. A.R.S. 0()(a)(i). Usable marijuana means the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or drink. A.R.S. 0(). Under the AMMA, [m]arijuana means all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant. A.R.S. 0(). III. ARGUMENT. A. The Court Should Not Entertain Plaintiff s Request for Declaratory Relief. The Declaratory Judgments Act provides that [a]ny person... whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the... statute... and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. A.R.S.. However, a court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. A.R.S.. Also, a declaratory judgment must be based on an actual controversy which must be real and not theoretical. Planned Parenthood Ctr. of Tucson,

4 0 0 Inc. v. Marks, Ariz. App. 0, 0, P.d, (). Thus, to properly state a claim for declaratory judgment, the complaint must set forth sufficient facts to establish the existence of a justiciable controversy. Id. In order to show that a justiciable controversy exists, the plaintiff must show sufficient facts that are real and not merely colorable, and declaratory relief must be based on an existing state of facts, not those which may or may not arise in the future. Am. Fed n of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Lewis, Ariz.,, P.d, (App. 0). Traditionally, declaratory relief has been considered inappropriate as to criminal matters. Zemel v. Rusk, U.S., 0 () (noting the general rule that equity will not interfere with the criminal processes, by entertaining actions for injunction or declaratory relief in advance of criminal prosecution ); Kahaikupuna v. State, P.d, 0 (Haw. 00); see also Witschner v. City of Atchison, P.d 0, (Kan. ) (declining to grant declaratory relief to determine whether certain activities violated criminal statute); Schwartz v. O Connell, N.Y.S.d, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. ) (a court will not grant declaratory relief to restrain a criminal prosecution or to interfere with the enforcement of criminal law, especially when facts are in dispute or open to different interpretations). Some jurisdictions, however, have taken the view that declaratory relief is available as to criminal matters, but only under limited circumstances. Kahaikupuna, P.d at 0. In Arizona, declaratory relief may be available when a criminal statute affects the plaintiff s livelihood or other fundamental rights. In Planned Parenthood Ctr., for example, the court held that the plaintiffs had alleged a justiciable controversy, noting that [d]eclaratory action has been held to be a proper remedy to test the validity of a criminal statute where it affects one in his trade, business or occupation. Ariz. App. at, P.d at. The court specifically declined to hold that persons not professionally qualified and licensed could state a justiciable controversy. Id. at n., P.d at. Many jurisdictions have taken a similar approach, granting declaratory relief in criminal matters where the plaintiff is not seeking to avoid prosecution, but rather where his or her

5 0 0 livelihood is affected by a criminal statute. See Pacific Meat Co. v. Otagaki, P.d, 0 (Haw. ) (granting declaratory relief where, inter alia, criminal statute affected a continuing course of business); Sun Oil Co. v. Dir. Of the Div. on the Necessaries of Life, N.E.d, (Mass. 0) (declaratory relief granted where criminal statute affected ongoing business relations and was not a case of equity intervening to prevent the prosecution of a crime ); Doyle v. Clark, N.E.d, (Ind. ) (a declaratory proceeding is not ordinarily available to enjoin the enforcement of a penal statute, but is available to test the validity of a criminal statute which affects one in his trade, business, or occupation ). Here, Plaintiff does not allege that the prohibition on the possession or use of cannabis affects her business, trade, or occupation. Rather, Plaintiff s primary purpose in seeking declaratory relief is to avoid possible prosecution for possessing cannabis. (See Compl..) As such, Plaintiff has failed to establish that declaratory relief should be available to challenge the Arizona Criminal Code s definition of cannabis. See Kahaikupuna, P.d at (declining to grant declaratory relief where plaintiffs request for relief did not involve a continuing course of business); Stecher v. Houston, S.W.d, (Tex. App. ) (declaratory relief unavailable where plaintiff did not allege that criminal statute affected a vested property right ). Moreover, even under the most liberal approach to declaratory judgments in criminal matters, Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief. An action for declaratory judgment will lie to test the constitutionality of a criminal statute where prosecution is threatened or irreparable injury will occur[,] and there [are] no disputed facts, leaving only a sole question of law. Cherry v. Koch, N.Y.S.d, (N.Y. Sup. ) (citations omitted). And, even if there are no presently disputed facts, if there is a possibility of disputed facts arising in the future, a declaratory judgment is unavailable. Id. at 0; see also Zemel, U.S. at 0 ( [I]f we are to avoid rendering a series of advisory opinions, adjudication of the reach and constitutionality of [the challenged criminal statute]) must await a concrete fact situation. ).

6 0 0 Plaintiff does not allege that she has been threatened with arrest or prosecution for possession of cannabis in violation of A.R.S. 0 and 0. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege that a justiciable controversy exists between her and the State of Arizona. Compare Planned Parenthood Ctr., Ariz. App. at, P.d at (complaint included an allegation that the State of Arizona, through its prosecuting authorities, intended to enforce the abortion statutes through appropriate action ); Rivera v. City of Douglas, Ariz.,, P.d, (App. ) (city employees stated a justiciable controversy where they had received letters from a city officer ordering them to take a polygraph examination and further stating that refusal would result in immediate termination ). Further, declaratory relief is inappropriate in this case because the criminality of Plaintiff s act of possessing Soccer Mom Tincture is entirely dependent on a set of facts that will vary with time. See Zemel, U.S. at 0 (finding declaratory relief not appropriate when various facts might make a difference as to criminal liability such that there was no concrete fact situation for the court to pass judgment upon). Being a To the extent that Plaintiff s allegations that law enforcement searched her home and seized her liquid cannabis tincture might otherwise be sufficient to establish a justiciable controversy, Plaintiff has not asserted that the search was conducted by a State law enforcement agency such as the Department of Public Safety. (See Compl. 0.) Thus, because Plaintiff s dispute is with the law enforcement entity that conducted the search and seized her property, the State is not in a position to develop the facts related to the search and seizure because it was not the entity that performed those acts. And, because the State did not seize the property and does not have possession of it, it would be unable in any event to comply with a court order to return the property as Plaintiff requests. Plaintiff s allegation that other [q]ualifying cardholders have been searched and had property seized, arrested, threatened with prosecution, and prosecuted for possession and use of marijuana... on the basis that the medical marijuana is cannabis, does not demonstrate a justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and the State. (See Compl..) Instead, Plaintiff may only challenge the constitutionality of a statute as it is applied to her own conduct. See Chapman v. United States, 00 U.S., () ( First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by [the federal drug statute challenged], so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case. ).

7 0 0 qualified cardholder under the AMMA does not automatically immunize a person for violations of the Criminal Code. Initially, a qualifying patient must comply with the requirements of the AMMA in order to benefit from its protections. See, e.g., A.R.S. 0.0 (listing the requirements for submitting an application for a registry identification card). If a person is a qualified patient and has successfully applied for a registry identification card, they are then permitted to possess no more than two-and-a-half ounces of usable marijuana. A.R.S. 0()(a)(i). Therefore, a person who might be protected from prosecution for possession of marijuana by the AMMA would be unable to assert that protection if they possessed more than the permitted amount of marijuana. Finally, although the AMMA provides a presumption that a qualifying patient is engaged in the medical use of marijuana pursuant to the AMMA if she possesses a registry identification card and possesses an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the allowable amount under the AMMA, that presumption is rebuttable. See A.R.S. (A)() ( The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of treating or alleviating the qualifying patient s medical condition or symptoms associated with the qualifying patient s debilitating medical condition pursuant to this chapter. ). Therefore, the immunity from arrest and prosecution the AMMA provides is very fact specific, and it would be inappropriate for this Court to make a determination divorced from any factual development that Plaintiff and/or an entire group of people are not subject to arrest or prosecution for possession of a particular item. This Court should not determine in a vacuum whether Plaintiff should be immune from arrest or prosecution for possessing Soccer Mom Tincture, because her liability would depend on a variety of factors other than the legal issue of whether the AMMA applies to possession of cannabis as that term is defined in the Criminal Code. Consequently, declaratory relief in this case would be inappropriate because it would be no more than an advisory opinion, and courts will not issue advisory opinions. Iman v. S. Pac. Co., Ariz. App., 0, P.d, (); see also Polaris Intern. Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Com n, Ariz. 00, 0 0, P.d 0, 0 () (declaratory relief not appropriate where, inter alia, the

8 0 0 plaintiffs sought advice on what is essentially a factual question, because [t]he declaratory judgment statutes cannot be used to make the courts a fountain of advice for the future conduct of our citizens ); Schwartz, N.Y.S.d at ( It is well-established law that a court will not grant declaratory judgment where its effect will be to restrain criminal prosecution, or to interfere with the enforcement of criminal law [especially] when the facts are in dispute or open to different interpretations. ). Also, Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court in the form of a judgment that her possession of Soccer Mom Tincture will not subject her to arrest or prosecution. (Compl. at, Prayer for Relief B.) But regardless of whether Plaintiff can be prosecuted under state law for possession of a narcotic drug i.e., cannabis she remains subject to prosecution for violating federal law. See State v. American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, 0 P.d, (Alaska 00) ( We conclude that the risk of criminal liability argument rings hollow because the activities that the plaintiffs wish to engage in are already criminal under federal law. ). In sum, Plaintiff has not been threatened with criminal prosecution and Plaintiff s immunity from possible prosecution in the future will be determined by many factors other than whether what she possesses is cannabis and whether it is included in the AMMA s protections. Thus, this Court should dismiss the complaint because a declaratory judgment would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy that Plaintiff claims she faces. See A.R.S. (courts may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding ). Finally, this Court may not grant the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff. (See Compl., and Compl. at, Prayer for Relief B [request for an injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing A.R.S. 0() against qualifying cardholders and caregivers].) Pursuant to A.R.S. 0(), An injunction shall not be granted... [t]o See Gonzales v. Raich, U.S., (00) (rejecting claim that federal statute prohibiting the possession of marijuana exceeded Congress authority under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to [state] law ).

9 0 0 prevent enforcement of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit. As the Arizona Supreme Court has stated: The superior courts of this state may not restrain a public official such as the county attorney or a public body such as the grand jury from discharging the duties imposed upon them by law. The county attorney shall present and the grand jury must inquire into criminal offenses triable within the county. Only where public officers are acting illegally or in excess of their powers may they be enjoined. State ex rel. Berger v. Myers, 0 Ariz., 0, P.d, () (citations omitted). The AMMA provides a very narrow exception to the applicability of the statute prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana. As a result, an injunction preventing the State from prosecuting Plaintiff, without the benefit of an actual controversy in which the facts relevant to the applicability of the AMMA can be developed, would be improper. B. A.R.S. 0() is Not Unconstitutionally Vague; Plaintiff, Therefore, Has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted. Plaintiff alleges that A.R.S. 0(), which defines cannabis, is facially void for vagueness.... (Compl..) As an initial matter, Plaintiff may not raise a facial challenge to the constitutionality of A.R.S. 0() because that statute s definition of cannabis does not implicate any First Amendment freedoms. See Chapman, 00 U.S. at ; see also United States v. Reed, F.d 0, 00 (0th Cir. ) ( A vagueness challenge [made in a context which does not implicate First Amendment values] cannot be aimed at the statute on its face but must be limited to the application of the statute to the particular conduct charged. ). Thus, the question is whether A.R.S. 0() is unconstitutionally vague as it applies to Plaintiff, not whether there are any theoretical vagueness problems that could arise elsewhere. At the outset, a statute is presumed to be constitutional unless the party challenging it establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that it is unconstitutional. See State v. Navarro, 0 Ariz.,,, P.d, (App. 00). And, when a statute is challenged as being unconstitutionally vague, courts will construe it so as to render it constitutional if such a construction is possible. State v. McDermott, 0 Ariz.,,, P.d,

10 0 0 (App. 00). A criminal statute is vague only if it fails to give reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibited or is drafted in a way that permits arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Id. at,, P.d at (quoting State v. Cotton, Ariz., 0,, P.d, (App. 000).) In determining if a statute is vague, courts consider whether the statute would allow a person of ordinary intelligence to ascertain from the language what conduct will subject him to criminal penalties. Matter of Appeal In Pima County Juvenile Action No. 0, Ariz.,, P.d, (App. ) (citing United States v. Harriss, U.S. ()). Also, a statute need not give perfect notice or utilize absolute precision of language in order to provide a fair and definite warning of what conduct is prohibited. McDermott, 0 Ariz. at,, P.d at (quoting State v. Kaiser, 0 Ariz.,,, P.d, (App. 00)). A statute, therefore, is not void for vagueness because it fails to explicitly define a term or because it can be interpreted in more than one way. Id. Further, a statute is not unconstitutionally vague simply because it may be difficult to determine how far one can go before the statute is violated. Kaiser, 0 Ariz. at,, P.d at (internal quotation marks omitted). Arizona s criminal code provides the following definition of marijuana: Marijuana means all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, from which the resin has not been extracted, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant. Marijuana does not include the mature stalks of such plant or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. A.R.S. 0(). Possession or use of marijuana is prohibited by A.R.S. 0(A)(). Arizona s criminal code also prohibits the possession or use of cannabis, which is classified as a narcotic drug. See A.R.S. 0(A)(), 0(0)(w). Cannabis is defined as: (a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except 0

11 0 0 the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil, cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. (b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol. A.R.S. 0(). Thus, as defined by the Arizona legislature, marijuana is the plant itself while cannabis is the resin of the plant. See State v. Medina, Ariz.,, P.d, (App. ) ( Basically, marijuana is the plant and cannabis is certain things derived from the plant. ); see also State v. Bollander, 0 Ariz.,, P.d, () (stating that the term marijuana as it is commonly understood is the green, leafy substance often called grass which is composed primarily of the leaves of the cannabis sativa plant in its natural state, as opposed to the resin of the plant); Baines v. Superior Court, Ariz., 0, P.d 0, 0 (App. ) ( Our supreme court has consistently rejected the contention that marijuana and cannabis are synonymous terms in legal contemplation. ). Consequently, there is nothing vague about the statutory definition of cannabis. Nor is the definition of cannabis rendered vague when considered in conjunction with the AMMA. The AMMA left in place the provisions of the Arizona Criminal Code Other jurisdictions utilize similar distinctions to differentiate between the plant and its extracts. Hawaii, for example uses the classifications marijuana and marijuana concentrate. State v. Choy, P.d 0, (Hawaii App. ). In Choy, the Hawaii Court of Appeals held: [T]he prohibition relating to marijuana is clearly aimed at possession of parts of the plant itself and excludes hashish and THC. On the other hand, the prohibition against possession of the marijuana concentrate is meant to apply to possession of nature or synthetic THC when found in a state separate from identifiable parts of the plant. One who is in possession of identifiable parts of the plant, alone or mixed with other substances, can only be prosecuted for possession of marijuana, while one who possesses THC separate from the plant is in possession of a harmful drug and can be prosecuted accordingly. P.d at ; see also State v. Pirello, P.d,, (Mont. 0) (concluding that hashish did not fall within the state medical marijuana act s definition of useable marijuana ).

12 0 0 while simultaneously protecting users of medical marijuana who comply with the AMMA s requirements from being prosecuted. See, e.g., A.R.S. 0(E) ( This chapter does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal or other penalties for engaging in... [u]sing marijuana except as authorized under this chapter. ); A.R.S. (B) ( A registered qualifying patient... is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner... [f]or [her] medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, if the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana. ) (emphasis added). The AMMA defines marijuana as all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant. A.R.S. 0(). Thus, like the Criminal Code, marijuana as used in the AMMA refers to the plant itself, not its resin or extracts. The AMMA, therefore, provides immunity from prosecution for the possession or use of usable marijuana, but it does not provide similar immunity for the possession or use of cannabis, as that term is defined by the legislature. Plaintiff suggests that the AMMA s definition of usable marijuana renders the definition of cannabis in the Criminal Code vague. (See Compl. at, 0,.) The AMMA allows a qualifying patient to possess two-and-one-half ounces of usable marijuana, and defines usable marijuana as the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or drink. A.R.S. 0()(a)(i) and (). This definition of usable marijuana does not create any vagueness as to whether an item is marijuana or cannabis under the Criminal Code. The AMMA permits qualified patients to possess items other than simply the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, but only if they are mixtures or preparations of the dried flowers of the marijuana plant. A.R.S. 0(). The AMMA, however, does not immunize cardholders from being charged with possession of cannabis or having their cannabis seized by law enforcement officials. If the initiative to pass the AMMA had intended such a result, it would have done so

13 0 0 explicitly. Cf. People v. Urziceanu, Cal. Rptr. d, 0 (App. 00) ( To the extent the authors of the [medical marijuana] initiative wished to [allow collectives ], they could have expressly authorized their existence in the statute. ). Therefore, because A.R.S. 0() is not unconstitutionally vague, even when considered in conjunction with the AMMA, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ariz. R. Crim. P. (b)(). IV. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant the State of Arizona requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff s complaint. Dated this st day of November, 0. THOMAS C. HORNE Attorney General /s/ Liza-Jane Capatos Kent Cattani Michael O Toole Liza-Jane Capatos Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendant State of Arizona The courts apply the same principals of interpretation to voter-approved initiatives as they do to statutes that are enacted by the Legislature. Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, Ariz., 0,, 0 P.d, (App. 0). Consequently, it must be presumed that the AMMA was passed with the knowledge of the existing and long-standing distinction between marijuana and cannabis. See Prudential v. Estate of Rojo Pacheco, Ariz.,, P.d, (App. ) ( We presume that when the legislature enacts a statute, it is aware of existing statutes, and [w]here a later statute does not expressly repeal a former one, they should be construed so as to give effect to each, if possible. ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

14 0 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this st day of November 0, I electronically filed this document with the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court, Maricopa County, using the AZTurboCourt e-filing System and a copy was delivered to Judge George Foster, Maricopa County Superior Court, East Court Building, Number, 0 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ., by E-Z Messenger. COPY of the foregoing mailed/ ed this st day of November, 0, to: W. Michael Walz, Esq. 000 North Central, Suite 0 Phoenix, AZ 0 walz@potlawyer.com Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin D. Ray Aubrey Joy Corcoran Laura T. Flores Assistant Attorneys General Education and Health Section West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ EducationHealth@azag.gov Attorneys for Governor Janice K. Brewer, Arizona Department of Health Services, and Director Will Humble By: /s/ L. Wright #