There is a saying, "a lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client". So when a civilian (read: non-lawyer), probably goaded on by antivaxxers, decided to sue Whole Foods for enforcing a local (Dedham, Massachusetts) mask mandate on January 4th, 2021 and going in "pro se" (without a lawyer, only as himself), you know things will get ugly... for the civilian. But let's lay out the case.
Ryan Manning went to Whole Foods in Dedham, Massachusetts on Jan 4, 2021, without a mask. He was stopped by staff who asked him to mask up, and he refused. It was escalated to both the manager and head manager, both of whom told him he needs to mask up. Instead of complying, he left the premises to call the police, alleged that his civil rights were being violated, then returned to the store with the police. The manager tried to offer him compromises, like doing the shopping for him, or giving him a health screening and a temperature check. Manning refused both. (It's obvious he's looking for a fight.) Why he won't wear a mask? He believes masks are used for satanic rituals so he won't wear one, and he refuses to "slowly commit suicide by lowering his immune system and depriving himself of oxygen". He eventually left. He filed the lawsuit in May 2021, with no less than EIGHT alleged violations of law:
1) Violated his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion (42 USC 1983)
2) Violated 18 USC 242
3) Discriminated against him in public and violated 42 USC 2000a in two instances (counts as 2)
4) Conspiracy to interfere with his civil rights violating 42 USC 1985
5) Engaged in "unauthorized practice of medicine" against MA general laws CH 112 / 6
6) Harassed him
7) Falsely imprisoned him.
Let's just say the judge eviscerated him in every count.
A1) Whole Foods is NOT a government entity or acting as a government entity, so 42 USC 1983 does not apply.
A2) 18 USC 242 is a CRIMINAL statute and is not intended for civil action.
A3) 42 USC 2000a requires trying the local law first with proper "notice" (MA General Laws Ch 272 / 98) and the plaintiff failed to do so. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate why this case is religious discrimination as it's clear the mask policy is aimed at people who don't wear masks (in fact, the plaintiff stated so in his complaint).
A4) The vague claims about the MA governor, the police officer who responded, the CDC and the two managers "conspired" to deprive him of his rights, without any explanation or evidence, is not documentation of a conspiracy.
A5) Plaintiff has failed to explain did anyone held themselves out as "practitioner of medicine", other than his own assertion that "masks are medical treatment". He has also failed to show that the defendants had diagnosed him in any way.
A6) Plaintiff has failed to cite any law that may have been violated for the alleged "harassment", and failed to demonstrate that merely the act of asking the plaintiff to comply with the store mask policy constitutes "harassment".
A7) Since the plaintiff had summoned the police himself, and no defendant had even implied that he was not free to leave, there was no false imprisonment.
Result: entire case dismissed.
AND the judge has a comment as well:
Manning v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Civil Action 21-cv-10833-ADB, 15 n.5 (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2022) (“In closing, the Court cannot help but note the following: despite the myriad of claims brought by Plaintiff, there is no constitutional, statutory, or common law right to jeopardize the health of others by shopping in a Whole Foods, without a mask, in contravention of its prudent policy, during a mass pandemic. If your heart is set on products from a market with a mask requirement and you can't or won't wear a mask, your choices are to get your food delivered, have someone else shop for you, or reconsider wearing a mask for your own health and the good health of the other shoppers.”)
No comments:
Post a Comment