Lawsuit against county health officer dismissed

A lawsuit against county health officers across Wyoming, including Crook County’s Dr. James Larson, has been dismissed by the Fourth Judicial District Court. Filed by a group of individual petitioners, the suit alleged that officials caused harm to citizens through the health mandates that were issued at the state and county levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case was dismissed for a number of procedural issues, and also because no direct link was made by petitioners between the health orders and the injuries they claim to have suffered.

“Dismissing a claim is a drastic remedy, which this Court applies sparingly and with great hesitation,” said Judge William Edelman in his order to dismiss.

“However, from the outset of this case, petitioners failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners brought claims that are unsuited for the facts alleged, petitioners failed to establish facts to support standing to bring the claims in the manner they pled, and consequently, petitioners failed to state claims which this Court may grant relief.”

Larson was named in the suit alongside 20 others, as well as state officials including Governor Mark Gordon, State Health Officer Alexia Harrist and Michael Ceballes, Director of the Wyoming Department of Health (WDH).

The suit called for the court to issue injunctions declaring all health and executive orders issued during the pandemic null and void. It also called into question the validity of the tests used in Wyoming to diagnose COVID-19 and asked the court to stop health officials from running marketing campaigns that contain “no meaningful context, false information or uses virtue signaling.”

Petitioners argued that the WDH, “Runs and maintains public service announcements to scare citizens into believing that a virus that has only affected a small percentage of Wyoming citizens and a death rate that is all but nil, is worse than the Black Death.”

County Attorney Joe Baron filed a motion to dismiss alongside the WDH and his peers from 14 of the counties named in the suit. On behalf of Larson, Baron’s motion included the following arguments: improper pleadings, improper venue, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs included, Crosby Taylor of Johnson County, who claimed he was injured when he and his business were “targeted and retaliated against” when he didn’t enforce a mask mandate at his restaurant in Kaycee. Tara Skagen of Albany County claimed that her right to use public facilities was violated at the Laramie Recreation Center, which “threatened the health of her entire family.”

Harold Bjork of Sweetwater County alleged that he was harassed by Mayor Tim Kaumo of Rock Springs while attending a peaceful protest, which led to his arrest. Jessica McComb of Albany County claimed one of her children has experienced “significant setbacks” due to the mask mandate in schools.

Billie Eckhardt of Albany County alleged she was cited for not wearing a mask. Though the charges were dismissed, she alleged that she heard the county attorney was “keeping the door open” to refile them, which meant she had to “live under duress daily.”

Melody Nielsen of Laramie County had “general grievances” about the difficulties faced by Wyoming residents during the pandemic and claimed she had become distant from her family. She alleged that the governor and health officials do not care about the people and, “Without any specific facts, that county health officials have committed ‘malpractice’ and ‘are working daily to violate my right to determine what is best for me and others’.”

A group by the name of Conservative Corner, which claims to educate and advocate on the First Amendment but does not specify its location, alleged that Gordon, the WDH and the Laramie County Health Officer have acted in an arbitrary and negligent way, leading to the spread of disinformation.

Another group by the name of Love America Laramie alleged that it was unable to hold in-person meetings, which prevented its growth and meant it could not compete with the “virtual unlimited propaganda disinformation” of the state’s health officials.

Janelle Willert of Laramie County claimed the Pine Bluffs County Library would not allow her or her children to be on the premises without masks despite her medical exemption and the age of the kids, which caused “great difficulty” in homeschooling her children. Tamara Weaver of Uinta County alleges that her daughter had panic attacks and refused to go to school following the emergency declaration, causing her grades to drastically decrease.

Judge Edelman noted in his response that the case includes no facts or allegations of harm that occurred in several of the named counties, including Crook. This county was one of several for which the petitioners did not provide any evidence that a locally issued public health order caused them harm.

Judge Edelman found that a declaratory judgement was not an available remedy for the claims outlined in the petition. Even if it had been, he said in his response, the case lacks four elements that make it possible for the court to offer a solution.

The controversy does not involve existing and genuine rights and interests (as opposed to theoretical ones), he said, and plaintiffs did not establish that they have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. No deed, will, written contract or other document exists that would mean the petitioners’ rights were affected.

According to the judge, the issue is also not one upon which the judgment of the court can effectively operate (as opposed to a debate that leads to a philosophical or political conclusion.) The court’s decision, he said, would have no practical effect upon the petitioners, especially because the orders mentioned in the case have already been lifted and also because many of the allegations are not directly associated with the orders, but with how different schools, law enforcement agencies and other parties interpreted and enforced them.

A judicial determination would also not affect the rights or status of the parties, Judge Edelman said, and the proceedings are not “genuinely adversary” in nature because there are no legally protectable and tangible interests involved.

A motion to dismiss was granted on May 12.