Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order: The Court Denies the Motion for Reconsideration — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin (Document 167)

Order: The Court Denies the Motion for Reconsideration — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin (Document 167)

Summary

An Order in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26, et al. v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, et al., Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O, in the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, filed June 2, 2022 as Document 167. The order addresses the Motion for Reconsideration and Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Request for Leave to Intervene (ECF No. 166), filed by pro se litigant Mike Webb on June 2, 2022. It states that Webb has presented no claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action and does not seek a religious exemption to the Navy's COVID vaccine policy. The Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration. The signature block names Reed O'Connor, United States District Judge.

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

Date
2022-06-02

Cite this document

“Order: The Court Denies the Motion for Reconsideration — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin (Document 167).” Original at archive.org, dated 2022-06-02. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2022-06-02-covid-era-misc-04952717-1/, SHA-256 049527176fc866c43da0ee08429892f0fb2342f01a17302e797cfadef647c928.

Full text

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

U.S. NAVY SEALs 1-26, et al.,
§

§

     Plaintiffs,
§

§

v.
§
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O

§

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al.,
§
§

§

     Defendants.
§

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration and Reply to Defendant’s Opposition
to Request for Leave to Intervene (ECF No. 166), filed by pro se litigant Mike Webb on June 2,
2022.

Webb has once again failed to meet the criteria for intervention. He has presented no “claim
or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1). He admits that unlike Plaintiffs in this action, he does not seek a religious exemption to
the Navy’s COVID vaccine policy. Mot. 3, ECF No. 166. As noted previously, he is not a member
of the Navy. Nothing in the Motion for Reconsideration overcomes the deficiencies of Webb’s
first attempt at intervention.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
SO ORDERED on this 2nd day of June, 2022.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 167   Filed 06/02/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 5131
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 167   Filed 06/02/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 5131
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.167.0.pdf
Size
136,320 bytes
SHA-256
049527176fc866c43da0ee08429892f0fb2342f01a17302e797cfadef647c928
Our copy
gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.167.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
Back to top