Doster et al v. Secretary of the Airforce et al
| Ohio Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Matthew W Mcfarland |
| Case #: | 1:22-cv-00084 |
| Nature of Suit | 443 Civil Rights - Housing/Accommodations |
| Cause | 28:2201 Injunction |
| Case Filed: | Feb 15, 2022 |
| Terminated: | Mar 18, 2024 |
| Case in other court: | Sixth Circuit, 22-03497 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 22-03702 |
| Last checked: Sunday Aug 14, 2022 5:29 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
United States of America
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Surgeon General of the Airforce
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Secretary of the Airforce
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Commander, Air Force Special Operations Command
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Commander, Air Force Reserve Command
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Commander, Air Education and Training Command
|
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Plaintiff
Jonathan Oberg
|
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Plaintiff
Johnathan Nipp
|
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Plaintiff
Andrea Corvi
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Daniel Reineke
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Paul Clement
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
McKenna Colantanio
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Joe Dills
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Hunter Doster
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Adam Theriault
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Benjamin Leiby
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Edward Stapanon, III
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Brett Martin
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Alex Ramsperger
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Connor McCormick
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Heidi Mosher
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Peter Norris
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Patrick Pottinger
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Jason Anderson
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Christopher Schuldes
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Douglas Ruyle
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Benjamin Rinaldi
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Mar 31 2022
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 13) AND ISSUING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: 1. Defendants, as well as any persons acting in concert with Defendants, are enjoined and restrained from taking any disciplinary or separation measures against the Plaintiffs named in this action for their refusal to get vaccinated for COVID-19 due to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Such disciplinary or separation measures include, but are not limited to, "adverse administrative actions, non-judicial punishment, administration demotions, administrative discharges, and courts-martial." (Dec. of Col. Hernandez, Doc. 27-14, Pg. ID 1941); 2. Defendants, as well as any person acting in concert with Defendants, are enjoined and restrained from taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs on the basis of this lawsuit or their request for religious accommodation from the COVID-19 vaccine;3. Thus, the temporary exemptions from taking the COVID-19 vaccine currently in place for these Plaintiffs shall remain in place during the resolution of this litigation; 4. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), this Order binds the following who receive actional notice of it by personal service or otherwise: the parties; the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and other persons who are in active concert or participation with the parties or the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; 5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), the Court has considered the need for Defendants to post security and concludes that no sum is required under the facts of this case; and6. Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as to Hunter Doster (Doc. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT.IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2022. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 03/31/2022. (kaf) |
|
|
GPO
Jul 14 2022
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 51). Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 07/14/2022. (kaf) |
|
|
GPO
Jul 14 2022
ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS (Docs. 21, 35, 52, 53, 54): 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 21) is GRANTED.2. Such class SHALL consist of active-duty and active reserve members of the United States Air Force and Space Force, including but not limited to Air Force Academy Cadets, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Cadets, Members of the Air Force Reserve Command, and any Airman who has sworn or affirmed the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office and is currently under command and could be deployed, who: (i) submitted a religious accommodation request to the Air Force from the Air Force's COVID-19 vaccination requirement, where the request was submitted or was pending, from September 1, 2021 to the present; (ii) were confirmed as having had a sincerely held religious belief by or through Air Force Chaplains; and (iii) either had their requested accommodation denied or have not had action on that request.3. Defendants' Motion to Sever (Doc. 35) is DENIED AS MOOT.4. Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene (Doc. 52), Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 53), and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Proposed Intervenors Johnathan Oberg and Johnathan Nipp (Doc. 54) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.5. Plaintiffs' counsel is APPOINTED as class counsel in this matter.6. The Court ISSUES a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the vaccine mandate against any Class Member, to expire 14 days from the entry of this Order.7. Defendants are ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, no later than July 21, 2022 and no more than ten (10) pages in length identifying why this Court should not grant a class-wide preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs may file a response, limited to ten (10) pages, to Defendants' supplemental brief by July 25, 2022.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 07/14/2022. (kaf) |
|
|
GPO
Jul 27 2022
ORDER GRANTING CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 07/27/2022. (kaf) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 19 2022
ORDER DENYING 83 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND FOR IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY, MODIFYING CLASS DEFINITION, AND MODIFYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 08/19/2022. (kaf) |
|
|
GPO
Mar 14 2023
ORDER TO STRIKE: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Notice and attached Declarations (Doc. 107). This Court sua sponte stayed this case in its entirety "pending the 6th Circuit's decisions on the Defendants' pending matters[.]" (March 3, 2023 Notation Order.) Rather than abiding by the Order, Plaintiffs completely disregarded this Court's directive and, instead, filed the Notice and attached Declarations. Trial courts have inherent authority to control their dockets. Anthony v. BTR Auto. Sealing Sys., Inc., 339 F.3d 506, 516 (6th Cir. 2003). Such inherent authority allows a court on its own motion "to strike improperly-filed matters and other items as part of managing their dockets." Wohadlo v. Tentcraft Inc., No. 1:18-cv-1442, 2021 WL 2383844, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2021). The Court finds Plaintiffs' Notice and Declarations (Doc. 107) were improperly filed, as such filing was in clear violation of this Court's Order staying the case in its entirety. Therefore, this Court has the inherent authority to strike such filing. Additionally, the Court reminds the parties that the Court has the "inherent authority" to discipline counsel if violations of court orders were to continue. See Berger v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bar Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 1993). Therefore, pursuant to the Court's inherent authority and broad discretion to manage its docket, Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. 107), as well as all Declarations attached as exhibits to the Notice (Docs. 107-1, 107-2, 107-3, 107-4, 107-5, 107-6, 107-7, & 107-8), are hereby STRIKEN from the record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 03/14/2023. (kaf) |
|
|
GPO
Mar 18 2024
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 111): The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 111). This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the matter is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 03/18/2024. (kaf) |
| Docket last updated: 01/20/2025 11:59 PM EST |
| Wednesday, August 14, 2024 | ||
| 144 | 144
3
pgs
order
Order Staying Case ~Util - Terminate Motions
Wed 08/14 2:43 PM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY (Doc.134 ): 1) Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc.134 ) is GRANTED; 2) This matter is STAYED; 3) The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report within fourteen (14) days after both Lackey and Plaintiffs' appeal have been resolved; and 4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 142) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 08/14/2024. (kaf) |
|