## Facts

- The United States sued Alexander “Alex” White Plume and Percy White Plume in 2002 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging unlawful manufacture and distribution of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana on federal trust lands in successive crop years beginning in 2000.
- The defendants denied the allegations and asserted they cultivated industrial hemp for industrial or horticultural purposes and argued low-THC hemp should not be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance.
- In December 2004, the district court granted summary judgment to the United States and entered a permanent injunction barring Alexander White Plume from cultivating any form of *Cannabis sativa L.* anywhere in the world without DEA registration.
- White Plume is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the cultivation at issue occurred on tribal/federal trust land on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
- In 2015, White Plume moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the 2004 injunction, citing major changes in federal and state law and policy concerning industrial hemp and marijuana, as well as changes in his personal circumstances.
- The United States opposed the motion.
- White Plume asserted he had complied with the injunction since 2004 and that continued enforcement imposed unjustified burdens given intervening developments.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2004 permanent injunction had become inequitable to enforce prospectively due to significant intervening changes in law, policy, and factual circumstances, warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(5).
2. Whether the injunction’s unusual breadth, combined with intervening developments and equities, constituted “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
3. Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was brought within a reasonable time given the injunction’s long-term prospective effect.

## Decision

- The court granted White Plume’s Rule 60(b) motion and vacated the 2004 permanent injunction.
- The court held the motion was timely in light of the injunction’s continuing prospective application and the timing of the asserted intervening changes.
- Under Rule 60(b)(5), the court found it was no longer equitable for the injunction to have prospective application because the governing legal and policy environment had materially shifted since 2004.
- Under Rule 60(b)(6), the court found extraordinary circumstances based on the injunction’s exceptional scope and the cumulative effect of the intervening developments and equities.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(5) permits relief from a judgment with prospective effect when a significant change in law or factual conditions makes continued enforcement inequitable or detrimental to the public interest.
- Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for “any other reason” that justifies relief, but requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
- In evaluating whether prospective injunctive relief should continue, a court may consider the injunction’s scope, subsequent legislative and executive policy changes, state regulatory developments, and the parties’ post-judgment conduct.
- A Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within a reasonable time; for long-term injunctions, reasonableness may depend on when relevant changes materialize.

## Conclusion

The court vacated a sweeping, worldwide injunction barring White Plume from cultivating any *Cannabis sativa L.* without DEA registration, concluding that intervening federal and state developments regarding industrial hemp and marijuana, together with the injunction’s exceptional breadth and changed equities, made continued enforcement inequitable and justified relief under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6).


United States v. White Plume, No. 5:02-CV-5071, 2016 WL 1228585 (D.S.D. Mar. 28, 2016)