Notice Withdrawing Motion for Second Amended Complaint — Wall v. CDC (M.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) · No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI · Doc. 221 · 2022-02-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
ORLANDO DIVISION 
 
 
LUCAS WALL,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
Case No. 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
v.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
District Judge Paul Byron 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
CENTERS FOR DISEASE   
 
 
 
: 
Magistrate Judge Daniel Irick 
CONTROL & PREVENTION et al.,    
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE WITHDRAWING MOTION FOR LEAVE  
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 190) 
 
 
COMES NOW plaintiff, pro se, and asks the Court and other parties to please 
TAKE NOTICE that I withdraw my Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 
Complaint, filed Dec. 27, 2021. Doc. 190. Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3) and the 
Court’s Order of Jan. 5 (Doc. 198), all defendants’ responses to the Amended Com-
plaint (Doc. 188) should now automatically be due in 14 days: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 
2022. 
 
I withdraw the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint because 
the Court refuses to rule on it. As noted, the motion was filed Dec. 27. It was fully 
briefed as of Jan. 101 – more than four weeks ago. The Court continues its deeply 
disturbing pattern of snubbing pending motions that I have filed in this case and  
                                                 
1 The Court has also failed to decide my Motion for Leave to File Combined Reply Brief, submitted 
Jan. 12, despite no defendant opposing it Doc. 207. 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 221   Filed 02/08/22   Page 1 of 5 PageID 6565

 
2
the related matter of Wall v. Southwest Airlines, No. 6:21-cv-1008 (M.D. Fla.) The 
Court has shown improper favoritism toward the defendants by promptly ruling 
on their motions – see, e.g. Joint Motion to Toll Deadline to Respond to Amended 
Complaint (Doc. 197), decided within one day – while placing my urgent motions 
in the trash can and failing to render a determination one way or another. Yet I am 
the one with a family emergency that urgently needs to travel to Germany to be 
with my brother during an extremely difficult time for him, not the defendants. 
The Court is acting as another adversary in these cases that I must fight against in 
addition to the actual defendants. It can only be surmised the Court has a clear bias 
in favor of the defendants, and there is little hope I will ever obtain justice in these 
matters.  
 
The Court refused to rule on my Motion for Summary Judgment against the 
Federal Defendants when it should have, prolonging this case by numerous 
months despite my pressing need to travel dating back eight months to early June 
2021, stranding me in a foreign state far from home. It has then declined to issue 
any decision on my Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 191). The Court has 
failed to issue a ruling on that time-sensitive motion even after I informed it Jan. 
23 of my especially urgent need to travel due to a family emergency. Doc. 215.  
 
As a result of the Court’s inaction throughout this litigation, I have forever lost 
the time I was going to spend with my brother and sister-in-law last year before 
they decided last month to separate. That is the most pure definition of irreparable 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 221   Filed 02/08/22   Page 2 of 5 PageID 6566

 
3
harm. Nothing the Court or the defendants could do can restore to our lives that 
time and the experiences the three would have had. 
 
Likewise the Court has stalled the pleading in this case entirely by ruling with-
out authority Dec. 18, 2021, that I could not replead amended charges against the 
Local Defendants to better align with my improved knowledge of the law since this 
case was filed June 7, 2021. The Court is ignoring its legal duty to treat a pro se 
litigant’s pleadings liberally compared to those written and filed by experienced 
attorneys.  
 
Because of the Court’s blockade of my ability to replead the corrected causes of 
action against the Local Defendants, I was forced to file an Amended Complaint on 
Dec. 26 (Doc. 188) that complied with the Court’s Dec. 18 Order and then imme-
diately move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on Dec. 27 (Doc. 190). 
With no decision, this has now resulted in an incredible waste of time (more than 
six weeks) for a case that has been exigent since the day it was filed eight months 
ago. 
 
Therefore, the Court leaves me with no choice but to withdraw the Motion for 
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint so the defendants will have to answer by 
Feb. 22. I reserve the right to seek leave in the future to refile the amended charges 
against the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority and Greater Or-
lando Aviation Authority. But for now it’s critical that we move to the second (un-
necessary – all issues were thoroughly and extensively briefed during the first 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 221   Filed 02/08/22   Page 3 of 5 PageID 6567

 
4
round last year) round of summary-judgment briefing in the counts against De-
fendants Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and Department of Health & 
Human Services regarding the ultra vires Federal Transportation Mask Mandate 
and International Traveler Testing Requirement – policies that have caused enor-
mous suffering to tens of millions of families of disabled Americans such as mine 
since they were put into place without any legal authority in January 2021.  
 
This Court has constantly made a point of declaring my need to travel to visit 
family abroad not an “emergency” or “time-sensitive.” But it is. It’s our decision 
what constitutes a family emergency, not the Court’s. The Court has acted wholly 
inappropriately during this litigation in denying me the ability to seek urgent relief 
when at least seven other illicit Executive Branch COVID-19 mandates have been 
enjoined or stayed in numerous federal courts across the land. Notably, as far as I 
am aware, the FTMM and ITTR are the only major Biden Administration pandemic 
mandates being litigated before a U.S. District Court or Court of Appeals that have 
never been enjoined. That speaks volumes. 
 
The Court might as well not exist as far as I’m concerned given how I have been 
mistreated. The only recourse I have under the Constitution for seeking a redress 
grievances of Executive Branch actions, filing a lawsuit, has utterly failed my fam-
ily. The Court has been so hostile to me personally it issued a Sanctions Order for 
nothing but me requesting a ruling on my Time-Sensitive Motion for Preliminary 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 221   Filed 02/08/22   Page 4 of 5 PageID 6568

 
5
Injunction by a date certain – a request that’s actually required by the Local Rules.2 
Doc. 211. I filed numerous objections to that order, noting a court would never, 
ever take such an action against an attorney advocating for his/her client’s inter-
ests. Doc. 214. But apparently it’s okay to do so against a pro se litigant when the 
Court itself imposes a mask mandate under questionable authority.3 
 
I currently abandon my additional claims against the Local Defendants solely 
because of the Court’s inaction on my Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 
Complaint. The claims are meritorious and should be heard. But it’s crystal clear 
the Court will do everything in its power to assure that never happens. 
 
 
Submitted this 8th day of February 2022.
Lucas Wall, plaintiff 
435 10th St., NE 
Washington, DC 20002 
Telephone: 202-351-1735 
E-Mail: Lucas.Wall@yahoo.com 
                                                 
2 “If a party moves for emergency or time-sensitive relief, the title of the motion must include 
‘emergency’ or ‘time-sensitive,’ and the motion must include an introductory paragraph that ex-
plains the nature of the exigency and states the day by which a ruling is requested.” Local 
Rule 3.01(e) (emphasis added). 
 
3 Nearly every mask used in the United States to comply with COVID-19 dictates are not medical 
devices authorized by the Food & Drug Administration or are approved only under an Emergency 
Use Authorization. Federal law – which this Court is constitutionally charged to enforce, not break 
– requires that any person offered the use of an EUA product must have the right to refuse to use 
the device. 21 USC § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). See also Doc. 188 at ¶¶ 229-254. 
 
It’s highly questionable whether this Court can be an impartial judge of my claims against the 
Federal Transportation Mask Mandate when it too unlawfully requires the wearing of FDA unap-
proved or EUA face masks. In Re: Restrictions on Courthouse Access Due to COVID-19, No. 3:20-
mc-23-J-32 (M.D. Fla. July 30, 2021). 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 221   Filed 02/08/22   Page 5 of 5 PageID 6569

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.221.0.pdf

Size

180,038 bytes

SHA-256

d93ac7d36064e4bddbe3493beb8bd80e1cb720ad145d2fce01e0681996c310ef

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.221.0.pdf

Original

archive.org