Miller et al v. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JASON MILLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OKLAHOMA 	BUREAU 	OF 	NARCOTICS
AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-1644-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Jason Miller, Big Chief Collective 3, LLC, the Big
Chief Drive Thru 2, LLC, Tropic Canna Lawton West, LLC, d/b/a Tropic Canna West,
LLC, and Radiant Fort 4 Solutions, LLC’s (Plaintiffs) Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 5].1 Defendants Oklahoma Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (OBNDD) and Donnie Anderson, in his individual
capacity and official capacity as Executive Director of OBNDD, filed a response in
opposition, [Doc. No. 14]. Plaintiffs did not reply, and the time for doing so has now
expired. The matter is therefore fully briefed and at issue.2
1 	On July 14, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining
order [Doc. No. 11].
2 	In the Order denying Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order motion [Doc. No. 11],
the Court advised the parties that it would set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction once the parties submitted briefing on the issue. Based on the
parties’ briefing, the Court determines an oral hearing on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction
motion is not necessary. Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191, 1998 WL
339465, at *3 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[Plaintiff] has failed to cite any Tenth Circuit authority
that requires a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 10

2
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Big Chief Collective 3, LLC, the Big Chief Drive Thru 2, LLC, Tropic
Canna Lawton West, LLC, d/b/a Tropic Canna West, LLC, and Radiant Fort 4 Solutions,
LLC (the “LLC Plaintiffs”) are Oklahoma limited liability companies wholly owned by
Plaintiff Jason Miller. The LLC Plaintiffs are dispensary companies that sell medical
marijuana products, and are registered with the OBNDD to manufacture, distribute,
dispense, prescribe, or administer medical marijuana.
On December 31, 2025, following an investigation, Defendant OBNDD issued four
orders to the LLC Plaintiffs to show cause for violations of Oklahoma’s Uniform
Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, (the “UCDSA”), 63 O KLA . STAT . § 2-101 et seq.
Miller was not named as a respondent in the show cause orders.
The LLC Plaintiffs requested a hearing, which was set for March 31, 2026. On
January 15, 2026, OBNDD denied four OBNDD registration applications submitted by
Miller for the LLC Plaintiffs. The denial letters state that the LLC Plaintiffs’ applications
“will be denied pending the outcome of the active administrative proceedings to revoke the
existing registrations.” [Doc. No. 18-1]. Additionally, the denial letters advise Miller that
he “shall be prohibited from applying for registration with the [OBNDD] for at least 5
years.” Id.
preliminary injunction motion.”); see also Bors v. Allen, 607 F. Supp. 2d 204, 207 n.2
(D.D.C. 2009) (“A court may deny a plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction
without first providing a hearing on the merits when the record demonstrates a lack of right
to relief.”) (citations omitted).
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 10

3
On April 30, 2026, the LLC Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the orders to show cause,
and OBNDD filed superseding orders to show cause on May 1, 2026. The hearing on the
show cause orders was continued to July 28, 2026.
On August 24, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, in which they seek relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their due process rights and the Equal Protection Clause,
the 	Oklahoma 	state 	constitution, 	declaratory 	and 	injunctive 	relief, 	and 	to 	recover
compensatory damages from Defendant Anderson. [Doc. No. 18].3
DISCUSSION
I. 	Pursuant to the Younger doctrine the Court will abstain from enjoining the
LLC Plaintiffs’ revocation proceedings.
Pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, Defendants ask the Court to abstain
from enjoining the ongoing OBNDD license revocation proceedings. Under Younger, a
plaintiff may not request a federal district court to interfere before a state court judgment
is final. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). “Generally, federal courts must
exercise their jurisdiction when available. However, principles of ‘equity, comity, and
federalism’ motivate a ‘longstanding public policy against federal court interference with
state court proceedings.’” Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Williams, 671 F. App’x 1021,
1024 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 460-61
(1974), and citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45); Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S.
69, 73 (2013)).
3 	The Second Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. [Doc. No. 18].
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 10

4
For Younger abstention to be appropriate, the Tenth Circuit directs that three
conditions must be present: (i) interference with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (ii)
involvement of important state interests; and (iii) an adequate opportunity afforded in the
state court proceedings to raise the federal claims. See J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d
1280, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). “Younger abstention is not discretionary once the [three]
conditions are met, absent extraordinary circumstances that render a state court unable to
give state litigants a full and fair hearing on their federal claims.” Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v.
Oklahoma, 874 F.2d 709, 711 (10th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted); see also Taylor v. Jaquez,
126 F.3d 1294, 1296 (10th Cir. 1997) (Because “‘application of the Younger doctrine is
absolute . . . when a case meets the Younger criteria,’ there is no discretion for the district
court to exercise.” (quoting Trust & Inv. Advisers, Inc. v. Hogsett, 43 F.3d 290, 294 (7th
Cir. 1994)). When the Younger abstention elements are met, a district court should dismiss
the claims before it, unless a plaintiff has brought claims which “cannot be redressed in the
state proceeding,” in which case the district court should stay the federal proceedings
pending the conclusion of the state litigation. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202
(1988).
Plaintiffs argue that abstention is not appropriate here because they cannot raise their
federal claims in the state forum and Plaintiff Miller is not a party to the state administrative
proceedings.
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 10

5
1. 	Plaintiff has ongoing civil enforcement proceedings that are akin
to criminal proceedings.
Younger’s application is limited to three types of ongoing proceedings: “(1) ongoing
state criminal prosecutions; (2) certain civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal
prosecutions; and (3) ‘civil proceedings involving certain orders . . . uniquely in furtherance
of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.’” Escalante v. Burmaster, No.
23-cv-2130-TC-TJJ, 2023 WL 3159592, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2023) (quoting Sprint
Commc’ns., Inc., 571 U.S. at 73); see also Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mountain,
LLC, 953 F.3d 660, 670 (10th Cir. 2020) (recognizing the three categories of state
proceedings to which Younger abstention applies).
Defendants 	argue 	that 	the 	license 	revocation 	proceedings 	are 	the 	“type” 	of
proceeding to which Younger applies, because they are akin to state criminal prosecutions.
The Court agrees.
A civil enforcement proceeding akin to criminal prosecution is one that is “initiated
by the State, it involves an investigation by one or more state agencies, and it potentially
involves a sanction against a private party for a wrongful act.” Byrd v. Pirrong, No. CIV-
25-747-SLP, 2025 WL 2963220, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 9, 2025) (citing Sprint Commc’ns,
Inc., 571 U.S. at 79). Here, Defendant OBNDD issued show cause orders to the LLC
Plaintiffs following an investigation by OBNDD “agents and informants” who “purchased
medical marijuana products from the Dispensary Companies without a validly issued
medical marijuana patient card.” [Doc. No. 18, at 7]. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, if the LLC
Plaintiffs’ OBNDD registrations are revoked, Plaintiff Miller may be “personally ineligible
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 10

6
to obtain future OBNDD registrations for up to five years.” [Doc. No. 5, at 7]. Thus, the
revocation proceedings are not only ongoing, but are also the type of proceedings to which
Younger applies. So, the first Younger element is met.
2. 	The revocation proceedings involve an important state interest.
“As to the [second] element, an important state interest, the Supreme Court has long
recognized the ‘historic primacy of state regulation of matters of health and safety.’” Wright
v. McClaskey, No. 6:15-1098-JTM-KGG, 2015 WL 5199217, at *8 (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2015)
(quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996)). Ensuring that medical
marijuana companies operating in Oklahoma comply with regulatory standards directly
implicates matters of health and safety, so the second Younger element is also met.
3. 	The state courts provide Plaintiffs with an adequate state forum.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the state court is not an adequate forum
to hear the constitutional challenges. See Chapman v. Okla., 472 F.3d 747, 749 (10th Cir.
2006) (finding that the plaintiff had “not shown that the state court is not an adequate forum
to hear his constitutional challenges . . . .”). Generally, “a plaintiff has an adequate
opportunity to raise federal claims in state court ‘unless state law clearly bars the
interposition of the [federal statutory] and constitutional claims.’” Crown Point I, LLC v.
Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass’n, 319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003) (alteration in
original) (quoting J.B. ex rel. Hart, 186 F.3d at 1292). A plaintiff’s failure to present the
federal claims in the state forum does not render the state forum inadequate. See Lofland,
2016 WL 5933514, at *3 (citing Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 330 (1977)).
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 10

7
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ failure to raise their federal claims in state court
precludes injunctive relief. Plaintiff Miller states that he is unable to present his federal
claims in the state forum because he is not a party to the administrative proceedings and
cannot:
[A]ssert constitutional defenses personal to himself; present witnesses in
support 	of 	his 	own 	claims; 	conduct 	discovery 	regarding 	his 	own
constitutional injuries; cross-examine witnesses concerning the deprivation
of his personal rights; obtain findings regarding his own liberty and property
interests; or obtain judicial review of constitutional claims that were never
adjudicated.
[Doc. No. 5, at 14-15].
Under O KLA . STAT . tit. 63, § 2-305(A), “[t]he Director [of OBNDD] shall issue a
written order to show cause to be served on the parties before annulling, conditioning,
suspending, or revoking any registration.” OBNDD proceedings under § 2-305 are to be
“conducted in accordance with the [Oklahoma] Administrative Procedures Act [(OAPA)]
and the rules and regulations of the [OBNDD] . . . .” § 2-305(E).
The Court finds Plaintiffs have not shown that they cannot raise their federal claims
in the state forum.
First, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims “may be pursued in state court.” Osteopathic Hosp.
Founders Ass’n, Inc. v. Splinter, 955 F. Supp. 1351, 1360 (N.D. Okla. 1996) (citing Robert
K. Bell Enters., Inc. v. Tulsa Cnty. Fairgrounds Tr. Auth., 1985 OK 10, 695 P.2d 513, 517);
see e.g., Morkel v. Davis, 513 F. App’x 724, 728 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Middlesex Cnty.
Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 431) (“State courts are generally equally capable of enforcing
federal constitutional rights as federal courts.”).
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Second, the OBNDD has not yet issued final agency orders in the LLC Plaintiffs’
revocation proceedings. The OAPA provides the LLC Plaintiffs with the right to a hearing
after reasonable notice, to conduct cross-examinations and present evidence, representation
by counsel, and a written administrative record of the hearing. O KLA . STAT . tit. 75, §§ 309-
10. And if the OBNDD’s decision is adverse to the LLC Plaintiffs, OBNDD must submit a
written final agency order that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. § 312.
Furthermore, if the OBNDD issues an adverse final agency order, the LLC Plaintiffs will
be able to seek a stay of the OBNDD’s enforcement of the order and judicial review of the
agency’s order in an Oklahoma district court. Id. §§ 318-19. Thus, “[a]t this early stage in
the administrative process, [Plaintiffs] have not availed themselves of the procedural
safeguards in the . . . OAPA . . . .” Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Examiners in Optometry,
30 F.3d 1325, 1329 (10th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff Miller also argues that the state forum is inadequate for raising his federal
claims because he is not a named party in the administrative proceedings. However, as
recognized by the Tenth Circuit in Massengale, non-parties to administrative proceedings
subject to the OAPA “may seek a remedy in state court . . . for declaratory relief on their
claims directly challenging the administrative rules governing that process.” Id. (citing
OKLA . STAT . tit. 75, § 306). Additionally, where the interests of non-parties are substantially
intertwined with those of parties to a state proceeding, Younger abstention is warranted.
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 348-49 (1975) (holding district court erred in not
dismissing federal complaint under Younger where non-party theater owners sued because
theater owners “had a substantial stake in the state proceedings, so much so that they sought
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 10

9
federal relief, demanding that the state statute be declared void and their films be returned
to them” and noting that Younger “could not be avoided on the ground that no criminal
prosecution was pending against [theater owners] on the date the federal complaint was
filed.”).
Because all three Younger factors are met and Plaintiffs do not show that there are
extraordinary circumstances present, the Court must abstain from hearing Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendants. See Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163
(10th Cir. 1999) (concluding that if the Younger conditions are met, abstention is non-
discretionary).
II. 	A stay is appropriate rather than dismissal.
Although abstention under the Younger doctrine is warranted, the Court finds a stay
of this case is appropriate, pending the resolution of the LLC Plaintiffs’ OBNDD revocation
proceedings. “Generally, when Younger abstention applies, a court may dismiss the
plaintiff’s equitable claims but should stay the case if there are intertwined legal claims
that cannot be asserted in state court.” Wrenn v. Pruitt, No. CIV-21-00060-JD, 2021 WL
1845498, at *5 (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2021) (citing Deakins, 484 U.S. at 202); see also
Deakins, 484 U.S. at 402 (holding that even if abstention is required under Younger, “the
District Court has no discretion to dismiss rather than to stay claims for monetary relief
that cannot be redressed in the state proceeding.”).
“The Eleventh Amendment ‘generally bars federal suits against state officers in their
official capacities for money damages,’” but Plaintiffs assert a claim for monetary damages
against Defendant Anderson in his individual capacity. Wrenn, 2021 WL 1845498, at *5
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 9 of 10

10
(quoting Franklin v. Kansas Dept’ of Corr., 160 F. App’x 7430, 734 (10th Cir. 2005)
(unpublished)). Therefore, a stay is required rather than a full dismissal of Plaintiff’s
claims.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 5] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED until the OBNDD
revocation proceedings are fully and finally adjudicated. The Clerk of Court is directed to
administratively close this case until further order of the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint notice with the
Court within 21 days of the OBNDD revocation proceedings being fully and finally
adjudicated so that a determination can be made as to what issues, if any, remain for
consideration in this case. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may file a notice of dismissal pursuant
to FED . R. CIV . P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to F ED . R. CIV . P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 th day of October, 2026.
UN IT ED STATES DI ST RICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-01644-D Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 10 of 10