Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services

Case docket

Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services — S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services — S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division — 18 documents in the archive, dated March 24, 2022 to October 18, 2022.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (16 filings); U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (1 filing)
Docket numberNo. 2:22-cv-01776 — main docket · CourtListener docket 267163
Filings18 public filings
Filed2022-03-24 – 2022-10-18
Document typesdeclarations (3), motions (3), opinions (2), complaint (1), memorandum or brief (1), judgment (1)
Original PDFs18 of 18
ProfilesXavier Becerra

Case summary

Mark Changizi, Daniel Kotzin and Michael Senger, three Twitter users who had criticized government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, sued the Department of Health and Human Services, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Secretary Xavier Becerra in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV. They alleged the defendants instrumentalised Twitter and other technology companies to silence opinions diverging from the government's COVID-19 messaging, and sought an injunction requiring HHS to retract a request for information and to abstain from coercive policies. On May 5, 2022 the court granted HHS's motion to dismiss, denied the preliminary-injunction and discovery motions as moot, and entered judgment closing the case. A Rule 60(b) motion was denied on October 18, 2022.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs: Mark Changizi, Daniel Kotzin and Michael Senger. Defendants: Department of Health and Human Services, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Secretary Xavier Becerra
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV (Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura); Sixth Circuit No. 22-3573
ProgramNot named in the filings on this page
ClaimsThat the defendants, by not simply colluding with but instrumentalising Twitter and other technology companies, silenced opinions that diverge from the White House's COVID-19 messaging, pleaded under the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act and 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), with attorney's fees sought under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The relief sought included a preliminary injunction requiring HHS to retract its request for information and to abstain from enforcing coercive policies or conditions that exert pressure on Twitter and other technology companies to censor users
Disposition or statusHHS's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) granted May 5, 2022; the motion for a preliminary injunction and the motion for limited expedited discovery denied as moot; judgment in a civil action entered the same day and the case closed. Rule 60(b) relief denied October 18, 2022 because two notices of appeal had transferred jurisdiction to the Sixth Circuit
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What did the court decide?

That HHS's motion to dismiss should be granted and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to compel denied as moot. The opinion treats standing as the threshold issue, records HHS's argument that the harm alleged, the suspension of the plaintiffs' Twitter accounts, is not fairly traceable to HHS, and states that the court will confine its jurisdictional inquiry to the non-conclusory allegations of the complaint because the traceability point implicates the state-action element of the constitutional claims.

What was the judgment?

An AO 450 judgment in a civil action entered May 5, 2022, recording only that pursuant to the opinion and order filed that day the court grants HHS's motion to dismiss and that the case is closed.

Why was the Rule 60(b) motion denied?

Because the plaintiffs had filed two notices of appeal and the case was on the active docket of the Sixth Circuit, No. 22-3573. The order states that in that circuit a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals, after which the district court is without jurisdiction to grant a motion under Rule 60(b) and may only aid the appellate process.

Docket

18 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 2:22-cv-01776

  1. Complaint — Changizi v. HHSEntry 1
  2. Declaration of Michael Senger — Changizi v. HHS (Exhibit A, Doc. 1-2, S.D. Ohio)Entry 1, attachment 2
  3. Declaration of Daniel Kotzin — Changizi v. HHS (S.D. Ohio)Entry 1, attachment 3
  4. Declaration of Mark Changizi — Changizi v. HHS (S.D. Ohio)Entry 1, attachment 4
  5. Pre-Litigation Email to HHS — Changizi v. HHSEntry 1, attachment 5
  6. —Entries 2–8 are not in the archive
  7. Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Changizi v. HHSEntry 9
  8. Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction — Changizi v. HHSEntry 9, attachment 1
  9. —Entries 10–26 are not in the archive
  10. Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery — Changizi v. HHSEntry 27
  11. —Entries 28–36 are not in the archive
  12. Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss — Changizi v. HHSEntry 37
  13. Judgment in a Civil Action — Changizi v. HHSEntry 38
  14. Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcript — Changizi v. HHSEntry 39
  15. —Entry 40 is not in the archive
  16. Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint — Changizi v. HHSEntry 41
  17. Rule 60(b) Motion to Vacate Dismissal — Changizi v. HHSEntry 42
  18. Exhibit 1: DHS Whistleblower Documents — Changizi v. HHSEntry 42, attachment 1
  19. —Entries 43–47 are not in the archive
  20. Government's Opposition to Rule 60(b) Motion — Changizi v. HHSEntry 48
  21. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Rule 60(b) Motion — Changizi v. HHS (S.D. Ohio)Entry 49
  22. Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence — Changizi v. HHSEntry 50
  23. —Entry 51 is not in the archive
  24. Opinion and Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion — Changizi v. HHSEntry 52

More documents from this case’s dockets

1 more document linked to this case’s dockets is in the archive and not in the docket above.

  1. Judgment (2022-03-24)Cover sheetCivil cover sheet, No. 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV, filed March 24, 2022: plaintiffs challenge an alleged HHS campaign to force tech companies to censor users.

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top