Dona Ana Lawsuit

Case 2:21-cv-00179-MV-GBW Document 7 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ISAAC LEGARETTA,
and JOHN or JANE DOES 1-20,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-cv-179 MV/GBW
vs.
FERNANDO MACIAS, Dona Ana County

Manager, DIRECTOR BRYAN BAKER, an
0fficial with the Dona Ana County Detention
Center, CAPTAIN BEN MENDOZA, an official
with the Dona Ana County Detention Center,
CAPTAIN JOSHUA FLEMING, an official with
the Dona Ana County Detention Center, and JOHN
Or JANE DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Isaac Legaretta’s Complaint for
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Doc. 1. Although Plaintiff did not file a separate motion
requesting emergency relief, the Complaint requests, inter alia, that the Court “[e]nter an
immediate TRO and a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from terminating,
demoting, or taking any negative action against Plaintiff for refusing to take a non-mandatory
unapproved vaccine.” Id. at 9. The Court finds it appropriate to set an expedited briefing schedule
on this request, rather than issue an emergency order on an ex parte basis.
Plaintiff, who is an employee at the Dona Ana County Detention Center, alleges that
County Manager Fernando Macias issued a Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine Directive (the
“Directive”), requiring first responders to receive a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of
ongoing employment. Id. ¶ 3. According to Plaintiff, the Directive “is in direct violation” of
federal law, specifically 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, entitled “Authorization for medical products for
use in emergencies,” and thus is preempted by federal law. Id. ¶¶ 6, 12-13. On this basis, Plaintiff
seeks a declaratory judgment that the Directive is preempted by § 360bbb-3. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff
further alleges that he is in “imminent danger” of being terminated from his job for refusing to be
vaccinated, which termination would be a violation of his constitutional rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 5, 15-20. On this basis, Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing
his termination or, if he has already been terminated, requiring Defendants to reinstate him. Id. ¶¶
21-22.
This Court is authorized to issue a temporary restraining order “without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney” only if two conditions are met: (1) “specific facts in an
affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition” and (2) “the
movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should
not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff’s attorney did not certify in writing any
efforts to give notice or the reasons why notice should not be required. There is no record on the
docket that Defendants have so far been served. Nor would Plaintiff’s service alone satisfy the
requirements of Rule 65(b)(1). Further, as Plaintiff has not been terminated and as a result of his
refusal to take the vaccine has received only a “Coaching/Counseling Acknowledgement,” which
specifically states that “coaching/mentoring is not considered a form of discipline and is solely
used as a tool for performance management,” see Doc. 1 Ex. B, the Court finds that the facts
alleged by Plaintiff do not clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will
result to Plaintiff before Defendants can be heard in opposition. The Court thus finds no grounds
to issue an order without providing Defendants with an opportunity to respond. It will, however,
order an expedited briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff must effect service of a copy of this Order, together with the Complaint [Doc. 1], and
any attachments thereto, to be received by Defendants no later than 5:00 p.m. Mountain
Standard Time (MST) on Thursday, March 4, 2021, notwithstanding any previous attempts
made by Plaintiff to serve Defendants. Proof of any service done pursuant to this Order shall
be filed with the Clerk of Court as soon as practicable.
2. If Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, a written response shall be filed with the Court and
served on Plaintiff no later than Monday, March 15, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
3. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than
Friday, March 19, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
4. The Court will set a hearing on this matter if it finds that such a hearing is necessary.
DATED this 4th day of March 2021.
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
United States District Judge

Dona Ana Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dona Ana Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dona Ana Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-00179-MV-GBW Document 7 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FERNANDO MACIAS, Dona Ana County

on this request, rather than issue an emergency order on an ex parte basis.

“Directive”), requiring first responders to receive a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of

order an expedited briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

DATED this 4th day of March 2021.

You might also like