Our Sacred Sanctuary, Inc., a Florida nonprofit religious corporation, is challenging federal drug enforcement policies in a case that has quickly devolved into a dispute over basic court procedure. The organization, along with individual plaintiffs Norelle Adams, Rob Willson, and Lora Wilson, is seeking a preliminary injunction against Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole, though the nature of their underlying religious freedom claims remains unclear from the procedural order.
Judge Presnell struck the group's second motion for preliminary injunction after they ignored his explicit direction to fix formatting violations. The court had previously struck their initial motion on April 3 'for failure to comply with the typography requirements of Local Rule 1.08(a)' and 'directed Plaintiffs to refile a compliant motion.' Instead of correcting the errors, the plaintiffs filed what Presnell described as 'an identical motion' that 'remains single-spaced in violation of Local Rule 1.08(a) and includes unnecessary numbered lines down the margins.'
The judge's frustration was evident in his terse order, noting that rather than following his clear instruction to fix the formatting problems, the plaintiffs simply refiled the same defective document four days later. The court's local rules require double-spacing for most filings, a basic requirement that ensures documents are readable and professional.
The procedural timeline reveals a pattern of disregard for court rules. After Judge Presnell struck the first motion on April 3 and gave specific guidance on compliance, the plaintiffs waited until April 7 to refile. Rather than addressing the typography violations, they submitted what the court found to be substantively and formatically identical to the rejected filing.
The show cause order puts the plaintiffs in legal jeopardy beyond their underlying case. They must now file a written response by April 13 explaining why they should not face sanctions for violating a direct court order. Sanctions in federal court can range from monetary penalties to case dismissal in extreme circumstances.
The case appears to involve religious freedom claims related to federal drug enforcement, with Our Sacred Sanctuary, Inc. seeking protection for what may be religious use of controlled substances. However, the substantive legal issues remain overshadowed by the procedural failures that have dominated the early stages of litigation.
For practitioners, the order serves as a stark reminder that federal courts expect strict compliance with local rules, regardless of the urgency or importance of the underlying legal claims. Even in cases involving constitutional rights, basic procedural requirements cannot be ignored without consequence.