Order Denying Temporary Restraining Order — Wall v. CDC

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI · Doc. 28 · 2021-06-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
ORLANDO DIVISION 
 
 
LUCAS WALL  
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
Case No: 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI 
 
CENTERS FOR DISEASE 
CONTROL & PREVENTION, et. 
al 
 
 
Defendants. 
 
/ 
ORDER 
Plaintiff moves pro se for the Court to issue an ex parte temporary 
restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendants Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, Transportation Security 
Administration (“TSA”), Department of Homeland Security, Department of 
Transportation, and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as President of the 
United States of America (hereinafter, the “Federal Defendants”), from 
enforcing the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate (“FTMM”). (Doc. 8 (the 
“Motion”)). Upon consideration and review, Plaintiffs’ request will be denied.  
I. 
BACKGROUND 
The FTMM requires those using public conveyances to wear a mask to 
prevent the transmission of COVID-19. See CTR. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & 
PREVENTION, ORDER UNDER SECTION 361 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT: 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 28   Filed 06/15/21   Page 1 of 5 PageID 1380

2 
 
REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONS TO WEAR MASKS WHILE ON CONVEYANCES AND AT 
TRANSPORTATION HUBS (2021).1 On June 2, 2021, Defendant TSA and Southwest 
Airlines denied Plaintiff access to his flight for his refusal to comply with the FTMM 
and wear a mask on the plane. (Id. at p. 3).  
On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a 206-page complaint containing 23 different 
counts. (Doc. 1). Among other things, Plaintiff seeks to permanently enjoin 
enforcement of the FTMM by the Federal Defendants.2 (Id.). Plaintiff contends 
that enforcement of the FTMM is an “improper, illegal, and unconstitutional 
exercise[] of executive authority.” (Id. at p. 2).  
Plaintiff now moves for a TRO enjoining “the Federal Defendants’ 
enforcement nationwide of the FTMM; or, in the alternative, their enforcement of 
the FTMM in this judicial district; or in the alternative, their enforcement of the 
FTMM specifically against me.” (Doc. 8, p. 5). Plaintiff states that he has scheduled 
multiple upcoming flights to visit “friends and family as well as visit several 
National Parks” and that his next flight is a June 16, 2021 trip to Salt Lake City, 
Utah. (Id. at p. 3, ¶¶ 2, 8–9). Plaintiff argues that he will suffer irreparable harm if 
the Motion is not granted because he will not be able to go to Utah. (Id. at p. 23). 
 
 
1      See https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/Mask-Order-CDC_GMTF_01-29-21-p.pdf. 
 
2  
Plaintiff also seeks to permanently enjoin enforcement of the International Traveler Testing 
Requirement (“ITTR”). (Doc. 1). The ITTR requires international travelers entering the U.S 
to test negative for COVID-19 no more than three days before departure and to display their 
negative results. The instant Motion does not request a TRO enjoining the Federal Defendants 
from enforcing the ITTR.  
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 28   Filed 06/15/21   Page 2 of 5 PageID 1381

3 
 
II. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a district court may issue 
a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney if: 
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage 
will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 
in opposition; and  
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made 
to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 
FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). Ex parte temporary restraining orders “should be 
restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and 
preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 
longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 
Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 
To obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must prove “(1) [there is] a 
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be 
suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the 
harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief 
would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 
1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). A temporary restraining order 
“is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly 
establishe[s] the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” Siegel 
v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting McDonald’s Corp. v. 
Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)). 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 28   Filed 06/15/21   Page 3 of 5 PageID 1382

4 
 
III. 
DISCUSSION 
As argued, the Motion fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff will suffer 
irreparable injury if relief is not granted. 
First, Plaintiff argues that he will suffer irreparable injury if the Court does 
not issue a TRO because he will be “denied the use of services that he has paid for.” 
(Id. at p. 23). However, Defendant TSA and Southwest Airlines gave Plaintiff clear 
notice that he will not be allowed to fly without a mask, and Plaintiff has made no 
attempt to avoid financial harm by requesting a refund for his pending flights. (Id. 
at p. 3, ¶ 6). In fact, it seems that many of Plaintiff’s upcoming flights are fully 
refundable. (See Doc. 1-5, pp. 16–18).3   
Next, Plaintiff argues that he will suffer irreparable injury if the Motion is 
not granted because his constitutional right to travel will be violated. (Doc. 8, p. 
23). But Plaintiff can still fly to Utah in compliance with the FTMM. Moreover, 
flying may be Plaintiff’s preferred mode of transportation, but it is by no means the 
only reasonable mode of transportation available to him.  
In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. There is nothing 
stopping Plaintiff from traveling from state to state, and the fact that Plaintiff may 
choose not to go on vacation to visit friends and family and the National Parks does 
not rise to the level of an exigency that would justify the “extraordinary and drastic” 
remedy of an ex parte TRO. See id.  
 
3  
 As displayed by the trip confirmations attached to his complaint, Plaintiff has purchased 
“Refundability” and “Trip Flex” for two of his upcoming flights. (See id.). 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 28   Filed 06/15/21   Page 4 of 5 PageID 1383

5 
 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
Considering these deficiencies, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against All Federal 
Defendants on Counts 1–12 & 14–15 of the Complaint (Doc. 8) is DENIED.  
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 15, 2021. 
 
Copies furnished to: 
 
Counsel of Record 
Unrepresented Parties 
 
 
  
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 28   Filed 06/15/21   Page 5 of 5 PageID 1384

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.28.0.pdf

Size

131,125 bytes

SHA-256

e0f2378e77327bdac9833909715bad582116e31825a4b8e423cdf802c1caba9b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.28.0.pdf

Original

archive.org