Federal court dismisses some defendants from anti-mask lawsuit
Albany County School District No. 1 is still being sued by a group of anti-mask mandate parents, but five other school districts no longer are. An order to dismiss calls the suit a ‘confused jumble.’
The U.S. District Court for Wyoming has released many of the defendants named by a conspiratorial lawsuit that took aim at school districts and government officials.
The court granted motions to dismiss for school districts in Sheridan, Laramie, Uinta, Goshen and Sweetwater County, and granted similar dismissals for the Wyoming State Health Officer Alexia Harrist and the Wyoming Department of Health Interim Director Stefan Johansson.
In the order, Judge Nancy Freudenthal calls the lawsuit “a confused jumble” and notes that the plaintiffs have been missing deadlines to respond.
“In short, the amended complaint is so overly long, confused, repetitive, argumentative, and generic in its allegations apparently directed to all Defendants, that it fails to give fair notice of the claims,” the order states. “The Court dismisses without prejudice the claims against the … Defendants.”
Albany County School District No. 1 has filed a similar motion to dismiss, pointing to the same rules of civil procedure, but the court has not yet issued an opinion on Albany County’s motion. Albany County is the only school district left in the suit, though other non-school defendants remain. The plaintiffs are also suing the governor, various county health officers and 100 unnamed individuals “but they do not identify any parameters for those anonymous defendants,” according to the order to dismiss.
The original 128-page lawsuit alleges that Gov. Mark Gordon and county health officers exaggerated the threat posed by COVID-19 in a plot to institute greater government control, and argues that most measures to combat the transmission of the virus are unconstitutional. The lawsuit is rife with spelling and grammatical errors and brimming with medical misinformation about the virus and masking.
Laramie teenager Grace Smith and a group of parents from across Wyoming filed the lawsuit in November, following Smith’s suspension, trespassing citation and arrest at Laramie High School. Smith, who was originally suspended for refusing to mask up, briefly became a national figure, bringing in $140,000 through an online fundraiser and appearing on Steve Bannon’s podcast as well as Fox News.
‘Repetitive, verbose and argumentative’
The schools’ motions to dismiss focused mainly on two arguments.
The more successful of these was the argument that the lawsuit failed to cite a “simple, concise and direct” aim, as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1).
“Defendants point out, correctly, that the amended complaint runs 128 pages — not including the 21 exhibits attached thereto — and is repetitive, verbose and argumentative,” Judge Freudenthal’s order states. “Plaintiffs in fact title their pleading as a combined amended complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, a combination that the federal civil rules do not contemplate.”
The order to dismiss says the complaint is “a confused jumble” of factual assertions, extensive citations and legal arguments about how all COVID-19 policies are unconstitutional.
“Plaintiffs repeat many legal arguments verbatim several times. For instance, Plaintiffs repeat the same argument regarding the meaning of ‘emergency’ in state statutes at least nine times,” the order states. “They then state fourteen claims for relief, with little or no attempt to tie any factual allegations to elements of legal claims.”
The order to dismiss adds that the lawsuit fails to specify which plaintiffs are bringing claims against which defendants, and fails to give those defendants fair notice about why they specifically are being sued.
“Moreover, several of the ‘claims for relief’ — while framed as requests for declaratory judgment — ask the Court to declare facts with no legal context.” the order states. “Specifically, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare facts regarding the COVID-19 coronavirus, scientific knowledge of the virus prior to the governor announcing a state of emergency, and the accuracy and nature of the ‘PCR’ test for COVID-19 infection.”
For these and other reasons, Freudenthal granted the motions to dismiss for the five school districts and the two Wyoming Department of Health officials.
‘Not a model of clarity’
The second argument put forward by the schools’ motions to dismiss is that the lawsuit should not have been brought in federal court. The school districts argue that the suit primarily makes reference to state law and federal courts lack the “subject matter” jurisdiction for such a case.
But Freudenthal’s order states the lawsuit does in fact make reference to alleged violations of federal law.
“Defendants are also correct that the amended complaint contains numerous generic references to alleged conduct being ‘unconstitutional’ without specifying any particular right, amendment or clause — or even whether Plaintiffs are referring to the state or federal constitution,” the order states. “However, the Court’s electronic search of the amended complaint locates a federal constitutional claim for nine of the eleven named Plaintiffs.”
The two plaintiffs who did fail to make a specific constitutional claim — Renee Buchli and Tamara Weaver – had their claims dismissed. But the other nine plaintiffs, including Grace Smith and her father, allege a violation of the equal protection clause, a segment of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Two other plaintiffs, both from Sheridan County, allege a violation of the First Amendment as well.
“While the claims for relief are not a model of clarity, the seventh and ninth claims seek declaratory relief that includes the above federal constitutional violations,” Freudenthal’s order states. “Accordingly, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.”
If the school districts had used only this argument, they would not have been released from the lawsuit. But having been granted dismissal for the merits of their other central argument, the five school districts, as well as the two state officials, are off the hook.
Sheridan Police Department fails to win dismissal
The Sheridan Police Department did not make the same arguments in its motion to dismiss. Instead, the department argues they have not been properly served — specifically, that the plaintiff served the summons to the wrong employee of the Sheridan Police Department.
The court has not found this argument convincing.
Under state rules of civil procedure, process servers must deliver a copy of a summons to a government agency’s chief executive officer, “or to its secretary, clerk, person in charge of principal office or place of business, or any member of its governing body …”
In this case, the plaintiff served the police department’s records technician and the Sheridan Police are arguing that a records technician does not qualify as any of the listed categories.
“SPD does not cite any authorities interpreting this provision of Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or any other state or local law on the issue,” Freudenthal’s order states. “In the end, SPD’s motion does not give enough information to entitle it to the relief it requests … It does not explain why Ms. Hersman as a “records technician” does not count as a “secretary, clerk, (or) person in charge of its principal office or place of business.’”
The Sheridan Police Department’s failure to win dismissal does not mean there is a stronger case against it than against other entities. In fact, the order denying dismissal appears confused by the police department’s inclusion in the lawsuit itself.
“The Court is unable to discern any allegations regarding the Sheridan Police Department,” the order states elsewhere.