Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Complaint - U.S. NAVY DIVERS 1-3, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official…

Complaint - U.S. NAVY DIVERS 1-3, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States of America (2021-11-24)

Date
2021-11-24

Summary

A Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed November 24, 2021 as Document 15 in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01236-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The plaintiffs, identified by pseudonym as Navy SEALs, Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician and Navy Divers, move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for an injunction against the defendants' COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The motion asks the court to bar application of MANMED Article 15- 105(n)(9), NAVADMIN 225/21, Trident Order #12 and NAVADMIN 256/21, to bar across-the-board denial of religious accommodation requests, and to bar adverse action against the plaintiffs. It also asks for a waiver of the Rule 65(c) bond, and it closes with a certificate of conference and a certificate of service.

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

   Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 15 Filed 11/24/21               Page 1 of 6 PageID 170



                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                FORT WORTH DIVISION

 U.S. NAVY SEALs 1-26;

 U.S. NAVY SPECIAL WARFARE
 COMBATANT CRAFT CREWMEN 1-5;

 U.S. NAVY EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
 DISPOSAL TECHNICIAN 1; and

 U.S. NAVY DIVERS 1-3,

                        Plaintiffs,
                                                           Case No. 4:21-cv-01236-O
        v.

 JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
 capacity as President of the United States of
 America; LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III,
 individually and in his official capacity as
 United States Secretary of Defense; UNITED
 STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;
 CARLOS DEL TORO, individually and in
 his official capacity as United States Secretary
 of the Navy,

                        Defendants.


                       MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

       Plaintiffs U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26, U.S. Navy Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen

1-5, U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician 1, and U.S. Navy Divers 1-3 (“the

SEALs”), by and through counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, respectfully

move this Court for a preliminary injunction against Defendants’ vaccine mandate.

       In support of this Motion, the SEALs rely on the following:

       1.      The Brief in support of this Motion, filed contemporaneously herewith;

       2.      The Appendix in support of this Motion, filed contemporaneously herewith;



                                                    1
   Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 15 Filed 11/24/21                   Page 2 of 6 PageID 171



       3.      The Complaint, ECF No. 1; and

       4.      All further evidence necessary to support this Motion, filed hereafter or presented

at any hearing on this Motion.

       The SEALs respectfully request the following relief:

       1.      A preliminary injunction against Defendants and their agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, and all persons and entities directly or indirectly in active concert or participation with

them that prohibits them from applying their facially discriminatory policies:

               a.   Manual of the Medical Department of the U.S. Navy (MANMED), Article 15-

                    105(n)(9);

               b. NAVADMIN 225/21, “COVID-19 Consolidated Disposition Authority” (Oct.

                    13, 2021);

               c. Trident Order #12, “Mandatory Vaccination for COVID-19” (Sept. 24, 2021);

                    and

               d. NAVADMIN 256/21, “CCDA Guidance to Commanders” (Nov. 15, 2021).

       2.      A preliminary injunction against Defendants and their agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, and all persons and entities directly or indirectly in active concert or participation with

them that prohibits them from applying their practice of:

               a. across-the-board denial of religious accommodation requests for COVID-19

                    vaccination;

               b. differential treatment of accommodation requests for the COVID-19

                    vaccination for secular reasons and accommodation requests for religious

                    reasons; and




                                                  2
   Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 15 Filed 11/24/21                   Page 3 of 6 PageID 172



               c. retributive or negative action against servicemembers who make or have made

                   religious accommodation requests; and

       3.      A preliminary injunction against Defendants and their agents, servants, employees,

attorneys, and all persons and entities directly or indirectly in active concert or participation with

them that prohibits them from making Plaintiffs’ non-receipt of COVID-19 vaccination or

Plaintiffs’ submission of a request for a religious accommodation from COVID-19 vaccination a

basis for any adverse action against Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to: separation from

service; loss of special warfare device; change in job title or duties; recoupment of education or

training expenses; determination of medical disqualification or non-deployability; loss or delay of

promotion, training opportunities, or retirement; and loss of bonuses, pay, or benefits.

       The SEALs request a waiver of any bond required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)

as these issues involve the free exercise of religion, there is no money at stake in issuance of the

injunction, and no financial impact on the Defendants. See Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d

624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (recognizing district courts have discretion to waive the bond requirement

of Rule 65(c)); see also Gordon v. City of Hous., 79 F. Supp. 3d 676, 695 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (waiving

Rule 65 bond in First Amendment lawsuit).

       WHEREFORE, the SEALs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion for

Preliminary Injunction against the Defendants.




                                                  3
   Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 15 Filed 11/24/21                      Page 4 of 6 PageID 173



Respectfully submitted this 24th day of November, 2021.

 KELLY J. SHACKELFORD                                  /s/ Heather Gebelin Hacker
   Texas Bar No. 18070950                              HEATHER GEBELIN HACKER
 JEFFREY C. MATEER                                       Texas Bar No. 24103325
   Texas Bar No. 13185320                              ANDREW B. STEPHENS
 HIRAM S. SASSER, III                                    Texas Bar No. 24079396
   Texas Bar No. 24039157                              HACKER STEPHENS LLP
 DAVID J. HACKER                                       108 Wild Basin Road South, Suite 250
   Texas Bar No. 24103323                              Austin, Texas 78746
 MICHAEL D. BERRY                                      Tel.: (512) 399-3022
   Texas Bar No. 24085835                              heather@hackerstephens.com
 JUSTIN BUTTERFIELD                                    andrew@hackerstephens.com
   Texas Bar No. 24062642
 ROGER BYRON                                           Attorneys for Plaintiffs
   Texas Bar No. 24062643
 FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
 2001 W. Plano Pkwy., Ste. 1600
 Plano, Texas 75075
 Tel: (972) 941-4444
 jmateer@firstliberty.org
 hsasser@firstliberty.org
 dhacker@firstliberty.org
 mberry@firstliberty.org
 jbutterfield@firstliberty.org
 rbyron@firstliberty.org

 JORDAN E. PRATT
   Florida Bar No. 100958* **
 FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
 227 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
 Washington, DC 20003
 Tel: (972) 941-4444
 jpratt@firstliberty.org

 *Application for admission pro hac vice
 pending
 ** Not yet admitted to the D.C. Bar, but
 admitted to practice law in Florida. Practicing
 law in D.C. pursuant to D.C. Court of
 Appeals Rule 49(c)(8) under the supervision
 of an attorney admitted to the D.C. Bar.




                                                   4
   Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 15 Filed 11/24/21             Page 5 of 6 PageID 174



                             CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

       Plaintiffs’ counsel were unable to conference this Motion with Defendants’ counsel

because no counsel has appeared for Defendants. However, once counsel for Defendants file

appearances, Plaintiffs’ counsel will confer with them.

                                             /s/Heather Gebelin Hacker
                                             HEATHER GEBELIN HACKER




                                                5
   Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 15 Filed 11/24/21               Page 6 of 6 PageID 175



                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that on November 24, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document

through the Court’s ECF system and will serve a copy on each of the Defendants according to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            /s/Heather Gebelin Hacker
                                            HEATHER GEBELIN HACKER




                                               6


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.15.0.pdf
Size
152,097 bytes
SHA-256
60a30391494da9e7ae55130580197385675ae29baa9fc46285f3a3135febc309
Our copy
gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.15.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
Back to top