Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten

Opinion

5 6

7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 ABIDING PLACE MINISTRIES, Case No. 20-cv-683-BAS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 v. [ECF No. 24] 15 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as the Governor of 16 California, et al.,

17 Defendants.

18 19 20 Plaintiff Abiding Place Ministries challenges the stay-at-home and other 21 orders issued by California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the corresponding orders 22 issued by the County of San Diego. The stay-at-home orders were issued in an 23 attempt to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19. 24 Plaintiff filed a complaint against the County of San Diego and Public Health 25 Officer of San Diego County Wilma J. Wooten, seeking a temporary restraining 26 order and declaratory relief. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for temporary 27 restraining order on April 9, 2020, asking the Court to enjoin the county order so the 1 telephonic hearing and denied the motion. (ECF Nos. 2, 10.) 2 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants Gavin Newsom, 3 Xavier Becerra, Sonia Y. Angell, and the County of San Diego. (First Amended 4 Complaint, “FAC,” ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for preliminary 5 injunction. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 24.) The County filed a response in opposition to the 6 Motion (ECF No. 42), as did the State Defendants (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff filed a 7 reply, and the State Defendants filed a sur-reply. (ECF Nos. 48, 55.) The Court held 8 a telephonic hearing on the Motion on June 3, 2020. For the reasons stated below, 9 the Court DENIES the Motion. 10 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUD 11 San Diego County, like most if not all other counties in the United States, has 12 been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the 13 coronavirus, which was first detected in China in December 2019 and has since 14 spread worldwide. The CDC determined that COVID-19 is spread primarily through 15 in-person interactions, either “[b]etween people who are in close contact with one 16 another” or “[t]hrough respiratory droplets produced when an infected person 17 coughs, sneezes or talks.” See CDC, How COVID-19 Spreads (last updated June 1, 18 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/corona-virus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how 19 covid-spreads.html. It can even be spread by those who are not showing symptoms 20 and do not know they are infected with the virus. Id. Thus, the CDC currently 21 recommends that everyone practice social distancing. Social distancing requires 22 staying at least six feet away from other people and “avoid[ing] large and small 23 gatherings.” See CDC, What is Social Distancing? (last updated May 6, 2020), 24 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social- 25 distancing.html. 26 As of the date of this Order, there is no vaccine for the coronavirus. Although 27 scientists and researchers are hopeful about potential vaccines that are currently 1 virus continues to grow. See COVID-19 Statewide Update, https://update.covid19. 2 ca.gov/ (last updated June 3, 2020). 3 Given the above, on March 4, 2020, Defendant Gavin Newsom, the Governor 4 of California, declared a State of Emergency due to the pandemic. On March 13, 5 2020, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency. On March 19, 2020, 6 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, which directed all residents to 7 “immediately heed the current State public health directives” including the March 8 19, 2020 Order of the State Public Health Officer. (Exhibit A to FAC, ECF No. 22- 9 1.) The State Public Health Officer ordered “all individuals living in the State of 10 California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain 11 continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors.” (Id.) 12 Californians could leave their homes “to obtain or perform [certain] functions . . ., or 13 to otherwise facilitate authorized necessary activities.” The Public Health Officer 14 was permitted to “designate additional sectors as critical in order to protect the health 15 and well-being of all Californians.” (Id.) On March 22, 2020, the State published a 16 list of “‘Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers’ to help state, local, tribal and 17 industry partners as they work to protect communities.” (Exhibit D to FAC, ECF 18 No. 22-4.) 19 As relevant here, one essential business category on that list is “Faith based 20 services that are provided through streaming or other technology.” (Id. at 11.) On 21 April 28, 2020, that category was changed to be: “Clergy for essential support and 22 faith-based services that are provided through streaming or other technologies that 23 support physical distancing and state public health guidelines.” (Exhibit E to FAC, 24 ECF No 22-5.) The Governor later clarified that this exemption from his stay-at- 25 home order allows not only online streaming of religious services (and the work of 26 individuals necessary to set up and run the streaming equipment), but also permits 27 drive-in style services “provided congregants do not leave their cars and refrain from 1 Newsom announced new guidelines for places of worship that allow in-person 2 worship services to resume, subject to county approval and compliance with certain 3 public health requirements. The County of San Diego adopted the guidelines on May 4 26, 2020. The requirements limit attendance to 100 persons, or 25% of building 5 capacity, whichever is lower. (Exhibit A to Reply, ECF No. 48-1.) 6 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed prior to the new guidelines and brings challenges 7 to the Governor’s stay-at-home order for various reasons. Plaintiff brings claims for 8 violation of the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Free Speech 9 Clause, the Freedom of Assembly Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 10 Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and various sections of the California 11 Constitution.1 Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order and an order to show 12 cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued, seeking the following order: 13 “Defendants, as well as their agents, employees, and successors in office, shall be 14 restrained and enjoined from enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce, 15 or otherwise requiring compliance with any prohibition on Plaintiff’s engagement in 16 religious services, practices, or activities at which the Center for Disease Control’s 17 social distancing guidelines are followed.” (Mot. at 23.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 The standard for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are 20 “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 21 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 22 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 23 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 24 25 1 Although not relevant to the Court’s rulings below, it is worth mentioning that on May 29, 2020, 26 the Supreme Court issued a decision on an application for injunctive relief in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, a case appealed from this Court. The Supreme Court declined to 27 issue an injunction in favor of the church, finding California’s guidelines that place restrictions on 1 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns 2 Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. 3 Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008)). 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 Considering the substantial changes to the State and County orders that have 6 occurred since Plaintiff filed its operative complaint and Motion, the Court first 7 addresses the issue of mootness. 8 The Constitution limits the federal judicial power to designated “cases” and 9 “controversies.” U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2. “The doctrine of mootness, which is 10 embedded in Article III’s case or controversy requirement, requires that an actual, 11 ongoing controversy exist at all stages of federal court proceedings.” Pitts v. Terrible 12 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011). “[A]n actual controversy must be 13 extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” 14 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citation omitted). 15 A federal court must dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if it becomes moot. Pitts, 16 653 F.3d at 1086–87. 17 Plaintiff seeks to “privately assemble away from the general public in the open 18 air on a large, private ranch.” (PI Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff has a “small congregation, 19 with less than 100 persons typically present at its Sunday meeting.” (FAC ¶ 25.) 20 Plaintiff “moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the County and all persons 21 acting at the County’s direction from applying the County’s Order of the Health 22 Officer and Emergency Regulations (Effective April 9, 2020) against Abiding Place 23 Ministries.” (Id. at 3.) In sum and as noted above, Plaintiff asks that: “Defendants, 24 as well as their agents, employees, and successors in office, shall be restrained and 25 enjoined from enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce, or otherwise 26 requiring compliance with any prohibition on Plaintiff’s engagement in religious 27 services, practices, or activities at which the Center for Disease Control’s social 1 The State’s May 25 guidelines, which the County has adopted, allow 2 Plaintiff’s congregation (of less than 100 persons) to meet as long as certain CDC 3 guidelines are followed. These most recent guidelines supersede any prior orders. 4 While “‘repeal or amendment of an ordinance by a local government or agency does 5 not necessarily deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the 6 practice’ at issue,” “[a] statutory change . . . is usually enough to render a case moot, 7 even if the legislature possesses the power to reenact the statute after the lawsuit is 8 dismissed.” Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations 9 omitted); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Lynch, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 10 2015) (“[W]hen subsequent legislation or rulemaking supersedes challenged 11 regulations or rules, the challenge is moot.”). Plaintiff challenges the prior State and 12 County orders, not the May 25 guidelines. The prior orders are no longer in effect. 13 Any further arguments made by Plaintiff at oral argument—e.g., Plaintiff 14 wants to hold a wedding at its church, its members do not wish to wear masks while 15 singing, the new guidelines are unclear, and the church should not be compelled to 16 tell members to stay home if they are sick—were not made in Plaintiff’s amended 17 complaint or its Motion. For a federal court to issue an injunction, there must be a 18 “sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the 19 claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the 20 preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the 21 preliminary injunction would grant relief of the same character as that which may be 22 granted finally. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority 23 to grant the relief requested.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 24 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 25 26 27 / / / | ||Because the amended complaint and the preliminary injunction Motion do not 2 ||challenge the May 25 guidelines, and because the May 25 guidelines superseded the 3 || orders challenged in Plaintiff’s papers, Plaintiff’s Motion is moot. On this basis, the 4 ||Court DENIES Plaintiff?s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. /) 6 || DATED: June 4, 2020 asf dg 5 Hipha. 6 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28