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 — 18 court filings in the archive, mostly from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, filed between March 24, 2022 and October 18, 2022. Among them: 3 declarations, 3 motions and 2 opinions.

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)
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 PDFs6 of 18

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.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.

Filings

18 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

  1. Pre-Litigation Email to HHS
  2. ComplaintComplaint · PDF
  3. Declaration of Bernadette SengerDeclaration · PDF
  4. Declaration of Daniel KotzinDeclaration · PDF
  5. Declaration of Mark ChangiziDeclaration · PDF
  6. Memorandum in Support of Preliminary InjunctionMemorandum or brief
  7. Motion for Preliminary InjunctionMotion
  8. Motion for Limited Expedited DiscoveryMotion · PDF
  9. Judgment in a Civil ActionJudgment · PDF
  10. Opinion and Order Granting Motion to DismissOpinion
  11. Preliminary Injunction Hearing TranscriptTranscript
  12. Order Denying Motion to Amend ComplaintOrder
  13. Exhibit 1: DHS Whistleblower DocumentsExhibit
  14. Rule 60(b) Motion to Vacate Dismissal
  15. Government's Opposition to Rule 60(b) MotionResponse or reply
  16. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Rule 60(b) Motion
  17. Motion for Leave to File Supplemental EvidenceMotion
  18. Opinion and Order Denying Rule 60(b) MotionOpinion

More documents from this docket

1 more document from the same CourtListener docket (gov.uscourts.ohsd.267163) is in the archive but is not among the 18 filings above.

  1. Judgment (2022-03-24)Cover sheet

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

Back to top