A federal district judge in Eastern Washington has rejected claims filed against President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and various federal agencies connected with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for federal contractors in a lawsuit filed by an individual representing himself.
“The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against Federal Defendants are properly dismissed for either a lack of jurisdiction or a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice ruled Nov. 19 in a case brought in August by Joseph Jensen Sr. The judge also denied Jensen’s motion for a preliminary injunction but gave the plaintiff 14 days to revise his complaint, after which time the claims against state defendants, including Gov. Jay Inslee, would be dismissed as well.
Jensen was reportedly employed at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site, although the judge said in the 28-page ruling the plaintiff never specified his employer. Jensen “states he is employed by a federal government subcontractor and is, thus, subject to the Executive Orders” issued by President Biden in September. The orders, and subsequent implementation guidelines, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for all federal workers and contractors.
There is a communication from Leidos-led Hanford Mission Integration Solutions addressed to “All HMIS Employees” dated Sept. 30 in the court record for the case, the judge wrote.
In his decision, Rice said Jensen lacks standing for failing to cite a harm “that is actual or imminent.” Also, “[p]laintiff has not alleged that he has been forcibly subjected to COVID-19 testing nor has he alleged he has been forced to submit to a COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges there are alternatives to the vaccination requirement in the form of religious or medical exemptions.”
For the most part, Jensen’s claims against government defendants rest on his disagreement with their judgments on public health, Judge Rice held. “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate there are serious questions going to the merits of his privacy and bodily autonomy claims, and that he is likely to succeed on those questions of merit,” according to the ruling.
