Cano v. Biden

598 F.Supp.3d 921

Corazon DE CRISTO CANO, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Joseph R. BIDEN, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 22-CV-193-CAB-AHG

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed April 4, 2022

Gary George Kreep, Law Office of Gary Kreep, Ramona, CA, for Plaintiffs.

U S. Attorney CV, Valerie Torres, U.S. Attorneys Office, Civil Division, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Joseph R. Biden.

U S. Attorney CV, U.S. Attorneys Office, Civil Division, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, United States Office of Personnel Management, General Services Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rochelle P. Walensky, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, United States of America.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs, a collection of over 100 individuals residing throughout the United States (along with one plaintiff residing in Germany) who are allegedly employed by dozens of different government agencies or federal contractors, bring this suit against government agencies and federal officials, including President Joseph R. Biden, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force and its individual members, seeking to enjoin enforcement of two executive orders imposing COVID-19 vaccine requirements on federal employees (the "Employee Mandate") and federal contractors (the "Contractor Mandate"), respectively. Shortly after filing the complaint, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") temporarily enjoining defendants, whom Plaintiffs categorize as the "Federal Government," "from enforcing the September 9, 2021, Executive Orders, #14042 and 14043, unnecessarily forcing COVID-19 vaccinations upon Federal Workers, as well as implementing any and all directives and guidance mandated by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force." [Doc. No. 3 at 1-2.] The application states that "[i]f not preliminarily enjoined, the Federal Government will irreversibly place the Federal Worker plaintiffs at risk of imminent financial duress and/or physical injury." [Id. at 2.] The application has been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. The application is denied, and the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. The Claims of Most Plaintiffs Are Not Justiciable

First, the overwhelming majority of the plaintiffs do not have claims that are ripe for adjudication. "A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." Texas v. United States , 523 U.S. 296, 300, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he mere potential for future injury, standing alone, is insufficient to render a case justiciable under Article III, even where the issue presented is primarily legal." See, e.g. , Brnovich v. Biden , 562 F.Supp.3d 123, 141 (D. Ariz. 2022) (holding that plaintiff with pending request for exemption from Employee Mandate did not have a ripe claim).

Here, all but thirteen of the named plaintiffs remain employed and either have obtained an exemption to any COVID-19 vaccine requirements of their employer or have a request for an exemption pending. Moreover, both of the executive orders in question are already subject to a nationwide injunction issued by another court. Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden , 581 F.Supp.3d 826, 836–37 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022) (issuing nationwide injunction on enforcement of Employee Mandate); Georgia v. Biden , 574 F.Supp.3d 1337, 1356–57 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2021) ) (issuing nationwide injunction on enforcement of Contractor Mandate); see also Complaint at ¶ 220 ("As it stands at this moment in time, all three of Defendant Biden's vaccine mandates (Federal Employee, Federal Contractor, and OSHA ETS) have been enjoined by a federal court, or the Supreme Court ...."). None of the presently employed plaintiffs have alleged or presented evidence that they have experienced an adverse employment action based on either the Employee Mandate or the Contractor Mandate. These plaintiffs, therefore, "come before this Court complaining of a compulsory inoculation they may never need to take, and of adverse employment actions they may never experience. This uncertainty weighs decisively against the ripeness of Plaintiffs’ claims and the irreparability of their purported injuries." Church v. Biden , 573 F.Supp.3d 118, 124, No. CV 21-2815 (CKK) (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021). Necessarily, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over their unripe claims, these plaintiffs are not entitled to a TRO.¹

Further, "[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause ... and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the claims of these currently-employed plaintiffs (identified by name below) are dismissed in their entirety.

II. Claims of Remaining Plaintiffs

Having dismissed the claims of those plaintiffs whose claims are not justiciable, only thirteen plaintiffs remain. Each of these plaintiffs alleges that they were terminated, forced into retirement, or placed on unpaid leave as a result of their opposition to COVID-19 vaccination requirements at their employers, whom they allege are subject to the Contractor Mandate. The Court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these plaintiffs’ claims because they lack Article III standing.

"[T]he ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , 578 U.S. 330, 338, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (internal citation omitted). The thirteen remaining federal contractor employee plaintiffs may, unlike the dismissed plaintiffs, have satisfied the first two elements. Either in the complaint or in declarations, these plaintiffs contend that they suffered an adverse employment action (i.e., an injury in fact) that is traceable to some or all of the named defendants’ actions to the extent that their employers took adverse employment action against them as a result of the Contractor Mandate. Nevertheless, the remaining plaintiffs still do not have Article III standing to seek the injunction sought by the application for a TRO because they fail to satisfy the redressability requirement. The injury allegedly suffered by each of the remaining thirteen plaintiffs is the adverse employment action allegedly taken by their employers because of plaintiffs’ refusal to be vaccinated. The application for a TRO, however, does not seek reinstatement of these plaintiffs’ employment; it only seeks an injunction on enforcement of the Employee and Contractor Mandates. Granting this injunction will not redress these remaining plaintiffs’ injuries.

The only injunction that would redress these plaintiffs’ injuries (i.e., their loss of employment), let alone the irreparable harm they claim to have suffered as a result of those injuries, would be reinstatement of their employment. Yet, plaintiffs’ employers are not named as defendants.² "To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must ask for that relief against a party who can redress her claim." Rodden , 571 F.Supp.3d at 691 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 568, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). The various federal officials and entities named as defendants here cannot reinstate these thirteen plaintiffs’ employment because they were not plaintiffs’ employers. Even if the actions or statements of the named defendants influenced the actions taken by plaintiffs’ employers that caused the injuries in fact, the injuries are not redressable here because they result "from the independent action of some third party not before the court." Id. (denying TRO on enforcement of Employee Mandate by federal employee who sued the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force but not the federal agency that employed her). Likewise, the relief sought in this case as a whole will not redress these plaintiffs’ injuries because it will not result in the reinstatement of their employment. Accordingly, even though these remaining plaintiffs potentially have ripe claims, their failure to name the proper defendants precludes the Court from providing relief that will redress their injuries and therefore deprives it of jurisdiction over their claims as well.

Disposition

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED ;

2. Because their claims are unripe and therefore not justiciable under Article III, the claims of the following plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction:

• Corazon de Cristo Cano (accepted religious exemption)

• Terry Hardin (pending religious exemption request)

• Crystal Irvin (pending religious exemption request)

• Angelina Pina Hardin (pending religious exemption request)

• Jeannette Sale (denied religious exemption but no allegation or evidence of adverse employment action)

• Tanya Allemang (pending religious exemption request)

• Mohamad Bachrouche (pending religious exemption request)

• Logan Barnes (denied religious exemption but no allegation or evidence of adverse employment action)

• James Booth (granted religious exemption)

• John Caligiuri (pending religious exemption request)

• Stephanie Caligiuri (pending religious exemption request)

• Ricardo Chavez (accepted religious exemption)

• Naomi Chiba (pending religious exemption request

...