Complaint - Med. Freedom v. Biden, — F. Supp. 3d. — , 2022 WL 188329, at (2021-08-24)

Summary

Plaintiff's Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction, filed February 28, 2022 as Document 58 in Air Force Officer v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the Department of Defense's August 24, 2021 Order and the Department of the Air Force's September 3, 2021 Order on COVID-19 vaccination against any class member. It also asks the Court to bar adverse action against class members based on the lawsuit or on requests for religious accommodation. A footnote states the motion does not seek relief on the federal civilian employee mandates, which another court enjoined in Feds. for Med. Freedom v. Biden. Adam S. Hochschild signed /s/ for the plaintiff.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

AIR FORCE OFFICER, on behalf of herself
)
and all others similarly situated,
)

)
Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES

Plaintiff,
)
v.

)

)
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
)
FRANK KENDALL, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and  )
ROBERT I. MILLER, in his
)
official capacity as Surgeon General of the
)
Air Force,

)

)

Defendants.
)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 65, Plaintiff Air Force Officer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Class”), respectfully requests that this
Court enter a class-wide preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing certain
COVID-19 vaccine mandates—specifically, Department of Defense’s August 24, 2021 Order
and Department of Air Force’s September 3, 2021 Order (collectively, the “Mandates”)1—
against any member of the Class, and enjoining Defendants from taking any adverse action

1 Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, also seeks relief as to certain
federal civilian employee COVID-19 vaccine mandates—specifically, President Biden’s
September 9, 2021 Executive Order 14043, Department of Defense’s October 1, 2021 Order, and
Department of Air Force’s October 8, 2021 Order.  See First Amended Class Action Complaint.
However, those mandates are preliminarily enjoined pursuant to another court’s order, Feds. for
Med. Freedom v. Biden, --- F. Supp. 3d. ----, 2022 WL 188329, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022).
See February 15 Injunction Order [Doc. 51], p. 2 n.2. Therefore the present motion does not seek
relief as to those federal civilian employee mandates.  Plaintiff reserves the right to pursue such
relief in the future if and as appropriate.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 58   Filed 02/28/22   Page 1 of 3

2

against any member of the Class on the basis of this lawsuit or of any member’s request for
religious accommodation related to the Mandates.2
Plaintiff relies on and incorporates the Memorandum of Law in Support of this motion,
filed simultaneously herewith.  In addition, Plaintiff relies on and incorporates her briefing and
the declarations in support of her original Motion for Preliminary Injunction and exhibits thereto
[including Doc. 2, 2-1 to 2-17, 40, 40-1, 40-2, 41, 41-1, and 45], the First Amended Class Action
Complaint, and her briefing and the declarations in support of her Motion for Class Certification.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a class-wide preliminary
injunction that enjoins Defendants from (1) enforcing the Mandates against Plaintiff or any
member of the Class, and (2) taking any adverse action against Plaintiff or any member of the
Class on the basis of this lawsuit or of Plaintiff’s or any member’s request for religious
accommodation related to the Mandates.

2 Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, also seeks relief as to Defendants’
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.  See First Amended Class Action Complaint,
Count III.  The present motion does not seek relief as to this claim.  Plaintiff reserves the right to
pursue such relief in the future if and as appropriate.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 58   Filed 02/28/22   Page 2 of 3

3

Dated: February 28, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Adam S. Hochschild

Stephen Crampton, pro hac vice
Michael R. Hirsh, GA #357220
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Senior Counsel

Hirsh Law Office, LLC
PO Box 4506

2295 Towne Lake Parkway

Tupelo, MS 38803

Suite 116-181
(662)255-9439

Woodstock, GA 30189
scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org

(678)653-9907
michael@hirsh.law
Adam S. Hochschild, pro hac vice
Hochschild Law Firm
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
PO Box 401
Plainfield, VT 05667
(314)503-0326
adam@hochschildlaw.com

Mary Catherine Hodes, pro hac vice
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor
Clayton, MO 63105
(314)825-5725
mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org

Michael McHale, pro hac vice
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Counsel
10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110
Omaha, NE 68114
(402)501-8586
mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org

Paul M. Jonna, pro hac vice
LiMandri & Jonna LLP
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
P.O. Box 9120
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(858)759-994
pjonna@limandri.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Air Force Officer
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 58   Filed 02/28/22   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.58.0.pdf

Size

473,578 bytes

SHA-256

2642bb9e13beddf7280dce133a5accc1824fa3f75560547e059d736e19659292

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.58.0.pdf

Original

archive.org