private right of. action under the CSA to force compliance. See Durr v. Strickland, 602 F.3d 788, 789 (6th Cir.2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of inmate’s claim for declaratory judgment that drugs used in execution violated the CSA because no private right of action exists under the CSA); Ringo v. Lombardi, 2010 WL 3310240, at *2-2 (W.D.Mo. Aug. 19, 2010) (finding that the CSA — including § 882(a) — does not create a private remedy for those aggrieved by violations of the CSA); West v. Ray, 2010 WL 3825672, at *3-4 (M.D.Tenn. Sept. 24, 2010) (following Durr and holding that because no private right of action exists under the CSA, plaintiff could not seek a declaratory judgment that lethal injection protocol violates the CSA); Jones v. Hobbs, 745 F.Supp.2d 886 (E.D.Ark.2010) (<HOLDING>). Allowing Claimants to bring a motion pursuant
holding that because the csa does not create a private right of action for its enforcement plaintiffs could evade the intent of congress by filing actions pursuant to the declaratory judgment act seeking judgment that defendant is violating csa holding that filing of infringement action twelve days after complaint for declaratory judgment obviated the need for a declaratory judgment in this case holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent holding that the exceptional circumstances test does not apply to declaratory judgment actions