Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 09/06/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`KATIE KIRN, ALLISON SLEEZER,
`
`
`ANGELA CARR, ANGELA OTIS,
`
`CAROL CRONK, CATHERINE
`
`TOMLINSON, CHARLES LEROY,
`
`CHRISTINA COTE, CHRISTINA
`
`GRUBE-RHINES, CORI GARDNER,
`Case No.
`DAVID VELLA, DEANNA BROWN,
`
`DIANE DECLERK, DONETTA LOWE,
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`DOROTHY PEYROLO, ELAINE ALLEN,
`
`JACQUELINE DONBROSKY, JANELLE
`
`BALANGNA, JAROSLAW BUDA, JENNI
`
`PALENCIK, JESSICA VEENSTRA,
`JILLIAN CURNOW, JOHN SOPER,
`KAREN NELSON HEA, KELLIE
`ERBSKORN, KELLY BOROM-
`JOHNSON, KIETH A. MCCONNELL,
`KIMBERLY BROWN, KIMBERLY
`JAQUISH, KRISTEN NOBLE, LAURYN
`SWIACKI, LISA ALLEN, LUMINITA
`WEIDE, LYNN KUEPPERS, LYNNSEY
`MCCOY, MARIE GALDES, MARLENE
`RANKIN, MARTHA BUCK, MELISSA
`MURPHY, MICHELE WILSON,
`MICHELLE LOCKHART, MOEHANID
`TALIA, NATHAN MIKLUSAK, NICOLE
`BAYONES, NICOLE COLLINS,
`PATRICIA ANDERSON, PAULA
`LOCKHART, ROBERT KUSZA,
`SHERRY KAHARI, STEVEN
`CROSSLEY, TIFFANY LONG,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,
`WRIGHT LASSITER III, ROBERT G.
`RINEY, AND ADNAN MUNKARAH,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/06/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, Kyle J. VonAllmen, and Thomas Renz,
`
`and bring this action against the above listed Defendants, HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,
`
`(“HFHS” or Defendant) WRIGHT LASSITER III, ROBERT G. RINEY, and ADNAN
`
`MUNKARAH. (“Defendants”) on the grounds set forth herein:
`
`I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`On June 29, 2021, HFHS distributed its Mandatory Vaccines Policy (“The Mandate”)
`
`document (Exhibit A, attached hereto). As the Policy states:
`
`The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for compliance with
`mandatory Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (Tdap); Measles, Mumps, and
`Rubella (MMR); Seasonal Influenza; and COVID-19 vaccinations for all HFHS
`employees and volunteers to ensure the health and safety of HFHS employees,
`patients, visitors, and others (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`It was further communicated to all contractors and employees of HFHS that they must
`
`become compliant with the directive to receive the COVID-19 vaccine on or before
`
`September 10, 2021.
`
`3 .
`
`It was further communicated by HFHS management that those who are not compliant
`
`withing the stated timeframe will be suspended, and given until October 1, 2021, to
`
`remediate their non-compliance. This essentially gave those subject to the Mandate until
`
`September 1, 2021, to receive the first of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine—or face imminent
`
`termination.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants’ policy document contains a stated goal of protecting the health of their
`
`employees and others, but actually subjects its employees to injury based on expert
`
`testimony attached hereto as Exhibit (B), and injury statistics compiled by the Centers for
`
`Disease Control’s (“CDC”) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/06/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`5.
`
`Mass-promoted COVID-19 injections have already killed and seriously injured hundreds
`
`of thousands of people according to the government’s own VAERS database. The ‘vaccines’
`
`from Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have killed more than twice as many people in
`
`less than a year than all other vaccines combined since the government set up its VAERS
`
`reporting system in 1990.
`
`6.
`
`Data reported through the VAERS system, as of August 20, 2021, indicates that 13,627
`
`deaths have occurred in the U.S. as a result of COVID-19 ‘vaccines.’ Additionally, 2,826,646
`
`injuries, 17,794 permanent disabilities, 74,369 emergency room visits, 55,821 hospitalizations,
`
`and 14,104 life threatening events have been reported to VAERS through August 20,20210.
`
`(vaers.hhs.gov/)
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto (Exhibit D) is a declaration of a federal employee who has calculated
`
`that the morbidity figures captured by VAERS are underreported by a factor of 5. VAERS
`
`has traditionally underreported ‘vaccine’ events, lending credibility to this claim. Based on
`
`this testimony, at least 65,000 Americans have lost their lives to these ‘vaccines’. (This
`
`individual has chosen to remain anonymous at this point, due to a fear of reprisal for
`
`revealing this information)
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs are employed in an industry that requires high levels of education, training,
`
`and experience. The Mandate requires that Plaintiffs choose between exposing themselves
`
`to potential harm or death or abandon their careers in health care.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants’ actions to implement compulsory COVID-19 vaccine shots as a
`
`condition of continuing employment is both unconstitutional and has caused money
`
`damages to Plaintiffs. Additionally, the actions of Defendants subjects Plaintiffs to a
`
`significant likelihood of bodily harm.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/06/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff KATIE KIRN is a registered nurse and unit educator ostensibly employed by
`
`Defendants at Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital. Ms. Kirn has been repeatedly harassed by
`
`HFHS management for participating in local government exchanges. To date she has not been
`
`advised of her employment status, but if she has been terminated, it is because of the Mandate
`
`that is the subject of this case.
`
`11. Plaintiff ALLISON SLEEZER is employed by Defendants as a registered nurse
`
`working in the communicable disease response unit at the Henry Ford Health System Main
`
`Campus.
`
`12. Plaintiff ANGELA CARR is currently employed by Defendants as a registered nurse
`
`and quality education coordinator at Henry Ford Allegiance Hospital Hospice.
`
`13. Plaintiff ANGELA OTIS is currently employed by Defendants as a registered nurse
`
`at Henry Ford Macomb Hospital.
`
`14. Plaintiff CAROL CRONK is currently employed by Defendants as a registered nurse
`
`at Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital.
`
`15. Plaintiff CATHERINE TOMLINSON is currently employed by Defendants as a
`
`post-acute registered nurse case manager at Henry Ford hospital Main Campus.
`
`16. Plaintiff CHARLES LEROY is employed by Defendants as a cardiology stepdown
`
`nurse at Henry Ford Health System Main.
`
`17. Plaintiff CHRISTINA COTE is employed by Defendants as a contingent registered
`
`nurse at Henry Ford Health System Wyandotte.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/06/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`18. Plaintiff CHRISTINA GRUBE-RHINES is currently employed by Defendants as a
`
`registered nurse at Henry Ford Wyandotte and Main Campus.
`
`19. Plaintiff CORI GARDNER is currently employed by Defendants as a pharmacy
`
`technician at Henry Ford Health System Brownstown.
`
`20. Plaintiff Dr. DAVID VELLA is a physician employed by Defendants at Henry Ford
`
`Health System Commerce Township.
`
`21. Plaintiff DEANNA BROWN is currently employed by Defendants in case
`
`management at Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital.
`
`22. Plaintiff DIANE DECLERK is currently employed by Defendants as a contingent
`
`respiratory therapist at Henry Ford Macomb Pulmonary Rehab Center.
`
`23. Plaintiff DONETTA LOWE is currently an employee of Henry Ford Health System.
`
`24. Plaintiff DOROTHY PEYROLO is currently employed by Defendants as a certified
`
`pharmacy technician at Henry Ford Health System Sterling Heights.
`
`25. Plaintiff ELAINE ALLEN is currently employed by Defendants as a medical
`
`assistant at Henry Ford Allegiance Hospital Jackson.
`
`26. Plaintiff JACQUELINE DONBROSKY is currently employed by Defendants as a
`
`registered nurse at Henry Ford Hospital Main Campus.
`
`27. Plaintiff JANELLE BALANGNA is employed by Defendants as a contingent
`
`registered nurse at Henry ford Hospital West Bloomfield.
`
`28. Plaintiff JAROSLAW BUDA, is currently employed by Defendants as a registered
`
`nurse at Henry Ford Health System Brownstown.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 09/06/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`29. Plaintiff JENNI PALENCIK is currently employed by Defendants within their
`
`Admission Transfer Office at the Henry Ford Hospital Maine Campus.
`
`30. Plaintiff JESSICA VEENSTRA is currently employed by Defendants as a contact
`
`center advocate at Henry Ford New Center One.
`
`31. Plaintiff JILLIAN CURNOW is currently employed by Defendants as a contingent
`
`registered nurse at Henry Ford Health System Wyandotte Hospital.
`
`32. Plaintiff, JOHN SOPER is a pharmacy technician employed by Defendants at Henry
`
`Ford West Bloomfield Hospital.
`
`33. Plaintiff KAREN NELSON HEA, is currently an employed by Defendants at Henry
`
`Ford Macomb Walk-In Clinic-Richmond, Michigan.
`
`34. Plaintiff KELLIE ERBSKORN is employed by Defendants as a clinical unit leader
`
`at Henry Ford Health System Allegiance.
`
`35. Plaintiff KELLY BOROM-JOHNSON is currently employed by Defendants as a
`
`credentialing analyst at Health Alliance Plan in Troy, Michigan.
`
`36. Plaintiff KIETH A. MCCONNELL is currently an employee of Henry Ford Health
`
`System.
`
`37. Plaintiff KIMBERLY BROWN is employed by Defendants as a registered nurse and
`
`a registered respiratory therapist employed by Defendants at Henry Ford Macomb.
`
`38. Plaintiff KIMBERLY JAQUISH is employed by Defendants as an accounts
`
`receivable specialist at Henry Ford Health System Allegiance.
`
`39. Plaintiff KRISTEN NOBLE is currently employed by Defendants as a contingent
`
`registered nurse.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 09/06/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`40. Plaintiff LAURYN SWIACKI is currently employed by Defendants as a registered
`
`nurse at Henry Ford Lakeside.
`
`41. Plaintiff LISA ALLEN is employed by Defendants as a contingent registered nurse
`
`at Henry Ford Health Hospital Macomb.
`
`42. Plaintiff LUMINITA WEIDE, is currently employed by Defendants as a
`
`radiographer at Henry Ford Medical Center in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
`
`43. Plaintiff, LYNN KUEPPERS is a registered nurse employed by Defendants at Henry
`
`Ford Health System Macomb Township.
`
`44. Plaintiff LYNNSEY MCCOY is employed by Defendants as an intensive care unit
`
`registered nurse at Henry Ford Hospital Macomb.
`
`45. Plaintiff MARIE GALDES is currently an employed by Defendants as a registered
`
`dietitian at Henry Ford Allegiance Hospital.
`
`46. Plaintiff MARLENE RANKIN is currently employed by Defendants as a clinical
`
`quality facilitator.
`
`47. Plaintiff MARTHA BUCK is employed by Defendants as a registered nurse and case
`
`manager at Henry Ford Health System Allegiance.
`
`48. Plaintiff MELISSA MURPHY is currently employed by Defendants as a registered
`
`nurse at Henry Ford Macomb Hospital.
`
`49. Plaintiff MICHELE WILSON is currently employed by Defendants at Henry Ford
`
`Hospital Main Campus.
`
`50. Plaintiff MICHELLE LOCKHART is employed by Defendants as a registered nurse
`
`at Henry Ford Health System Allegiance Health.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 09/06/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`51. Plaintiff Dr. MOEHANID TALIA is a physician practicing internal medicine at
`
`Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital. Dr. Talia enjoys privileges within the hospital
`
`system of which he will be deprived by virtue of the Mandate.
`
`52. Plaintiff NATHAN MIKLUSAK is currently employed by Defendants as a pre/post-
`
`op registered nurse at Henry Ford Health System Macomb Hospital.
`
`53. Plaintiff NICOLE BAYONES is employed by Defendants as a radiologic technician
`
`at Henry Ford Health System Commerce Medical Center.
`
`54. Plaintiff NICOLE COLLINS is currently an employee of Henry Ford Health System.
`
`55. Plaintiff PATRICIA ANDERSON is currently employed by Defendants as a
`
`pharmacy technician at Henry Ford Home Infusion.
`
`56. Plaintiff PAULA LOCKHART is employed by Defendants as a certified pharmacy
`
`technician at Henry Ford Health System Wyandotte/Brownstown.
`
`57. Plaintiff ROBERT KUSZA is currently employed by Defendants as a corporate IT
`
`solution analyst.
`
`58. Plaintiff SHERRY KAHARI is employed by Defendants as a transformation project
`
`specialist at Henry Ford Health System, 1 Ford Place.
`
`59. Plaintiff Dr. STEVEN CROSSLEY is a family practice physician currently affiliated
`
`with Henry Ford Health System Wyandotte Hospital.
`
`60. Plaintiff TIFFANY LONG is currently employed by Defendants as a registered
`
`nurse at Henry Ford Health System Taylor/Fairlane.
`
`61. Defendant HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM is a Domestic Non-Profit
`
`Corporation located within this district at 1 Ford Place 5B, Detroit, Michigan, 48202. As
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 09/06/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`noted above, HFHS either employs or has contractual relationships with each of the
`
`Plaintiffs. HFHS maintains five separate hospitals within the State of Michigan and owns
`
`Health Alliance Plan, a health insurance provider.
`
`62. Defendant WRIGHT LASSITER, III is President of HFHS and, pursuant to the
`
`Michigan Administrative Code, Rule 325.451171, as its Chief Executive, is responsible for
`
`all Human Resources Administration within HFHS. Mr. Lassiter is also a director of
`
`HFHS, serves as a director of Health Alliance Plan, Director of Henry Ford Macomb
`
`Hospital Corporation, Director of Henry Ford Wyandotte Hospital Corporation, and is a
`
`trustee of the Henry Ford Health System Foundation.
`
`63. Defendant ROBERT G. RINEY is Chief Operating Officer for HFHS. Additionally,
`
`Mr. Riney serves as a Trustee for Henry Ford Allegiance Health, as a Trustee for Henry
`
`Ford Hospital and Health Network, as a Trustee for Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, as a
`
`Trustee of Henry Ford Physician Network, as a Trustee for the Henry Ford West
`
`Bloomfield Hospital, and as a Trustee for the Henry Ford Wyandotte Hospital.
`
`64. Defendant ADNAN MUNKARAH is Chief Clinical Officer for HFHS.
`
`Additionally, Mr. Munkarah serves as Director for Health Alliance Plan, and as a Trustee
`
`for Henry Ford Allegiance Health.
`
`65. The individuals listed as Defendants, and potentially others, are key decision makers
`
`and are primarily responsible for the unconstitutional acts undertaken and described in this
`
`case.
`
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`66. This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which
`
`confers original jurisdiction on federal district courts to hear suits arising under the laws and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 09/06/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`Constitution of the United States and because this action seeks redress for the deprivation,
`
`under color of state law, of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution
`
`of the United States, as well as the Court’s inherent equitable powers.
`
`67. This Court has the authority to grant the requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2201, and any injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).
`
`68. This Court is the appropriate venue for this litigation under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), (c), and
`
`(d) since Plaintiffs’ claims arose in Michigan, and the acts complained of occurred in this
`
`judicial district, and Defendants reside within this district.
`
`69. Plaintiffs satisfy the “case-or-controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution
`
`and have standing to sue because they:
`
`[have] suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or
`imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
`action of the defendant; and (3 it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury
`will be redressed by a favorable decision.
`
`Sproule v. United States FDA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62507 at *7 (S.D.Fl. 2018) (quoting
`
`Fla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir.
`
`2011)).
`
`IV. COUNTS
`
`COUNT I
`
`DEFENDANT HFHS HAS VIOLATED 42 U.S.C. § 1983
`
`70. Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`71. The HFHS Mandate violates the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment to the
`
`United States Constitution, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
`
`No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
`immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 09/06/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
`within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
`
`This amendment conveys to the citizenry of the United States rights of personal
`
`
`72.
`
`autonomy and bodily integrity, see, e.g., Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
`
`11 (1905), and the right to reject medical treatment, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. Health,
`
`497 U.S. 261 (1990). Jacobson recognized an exception where rights are violated, or a mandate
`
`is unreasonable for not advancing health:
`
`If there is any . . . power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of
`a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the
`legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have
`been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety,
`[1] has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or [2] is, beyond all
`question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is
`the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.
`
`Jacobson has routinely been cited as authority for state mandated vaccination, but it
`
`
`
`73.
`
`should be noted that it was decided in 1905 and arose from a criminal prosecution. The Court in
`
`Jacobson was addressing the issue of a vaccine ordinance being a political question. The
`
`Jacobson Court states:
`
`“These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground
`gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question… the
`defendant did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was, in
`fact, not a fit subject of vaccination…” The Jacobson decision never gets to the
`question of efficacy or dangerous side effects of any vaccine. The issue in
`Jacobson was based on a single individual refusing a fine for a local regulation
`about an established vaccine.
`
`
`
`74.
`
`The Jacobson ruling has been substantially overruled since the time of its issuance. In
`
`Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, the Court stated:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 09/06/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`Roe, however, may be seen not only as an exemplar of Griswold liberty but as a
`rule (whether or not mistaken) of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with
`doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate
`medical treatment or to bar its rejection. If so, our cases since Roe accord with
`Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying
`any plenary override of individual liberty claims. Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept.
`of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 111 L. Ed. 2d 224, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990); cf., e. g.,
`Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135, 118 L. Ed. 2d 479, 112 S. Ct. 1810 (1992);
`Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 110 S. Ct. 1028 (1990);
`see also, e. g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 96 L. Ed. 183, 72 S. Ct. 205
`(1952); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24-30, 49 L. Ed. 643, 25 S. Ct.
`358 (1905).
`
`
`
`75.
`
`To reiterate– “a State’s interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any
`
`plenary override of individual liberty claims.” It must be noted that the Court cites Jacobson in
`
`its justification for this quote.
`
`76.
`
`In Guertan v. Michigan, 912 F.3d 907 (2019) the 6th Circuit Appellate Court sets forth the
`
`importance of Constitutional bodily integrity theory.
`
`This common law right is first among equals. As the Supreme Court has said: "No
`right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than
`the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free
`from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable
`authority of law." Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S. Ct.
`1000, 35 L. Ed. 734 (1891); cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 772, 86 S.
`Ct. 1826, [*919] 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966) ("The integrity of an individual's person
`is a cherished value of our society."). Absent lawful authority, invasion of one's
`body "is an indignity, an assault, and a trespass" prohibited at common law.
`Union Pac. Ry., 141 U.S. at 252. On this basis, we have concluded "[t]he right to
`personal security and to bodily integrity bears an impressive constitutional
`pedigree." Doe v. Claiborne Cty., 103 F.3d 495, 506 (6th Cir. 1996).
`
`
`
`77.
`
`
`
`
`The Guertan Court goes on to state:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 09/06/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`Thus, to show that the government has violated one's right to bodily integrity, a
`plaintiff need not "establish any constitutional significance to the means by which
`the harm occurs[.]" Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391, 408 n.4 (6th Cir. 2017). That is
`because "individuals possess a constitutional right to be free from forcible
`intrusions on their bodies against their will, absent a compelling state interest."
`Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine, 696 F.3d 490, 506 (6th Cir.
`2012).
`
`
`And:
`
`
`78.
`
`The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body
`represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." Id. at 229 (citing
`Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 105 S. Ct. 1611, 84 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1985), and
`Schmerber, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908). And this is especially
`so when the foreign substance "can have serious, even fatal, side effects" despite
`some therapeutic benefits.
`
`Additionally, in 1990, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the forcible injection of
`
`medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that
`
`person's liberty." Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 110 S. Ct. 1028
`
`(1990). Still, other cases support the recognition of a general liberty interest in refusing medical
`
`treatment. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 118 L. Ed. 2d 479, 112 S. Ct. 1810 (1992)
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims fall under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy when a person
`
`acting under color of law deprives a Plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
`
`Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To employ
`
`§ 1983 to secure a remedy for a deprivation of a federally secured right, a Plaintiff must
`
`generally show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of
`
`state law. See, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Focus on the Family v. Pinellas
`
`Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2003). Conversely, purely private
`
`conduct is not within the reach of the statute. Focus on the Family, 344 F.3d at 1277. (Id)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 09/06/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`80.
`
`There are three tests presented in case law to determine when a private party is acting
`
`under color of state law. The Public Function Test, State Compulsion Test, and the Nexus/Joint
`
`Action Test, see Focus on the Family (Id.)
`
`81.
`
`Defendants have stated that their policy to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine is to ensure
`
`the health and safety of HFHS employees, patients, visitors, and others. (Exhibit A)
`
`82.
`
`Ensuring the health and safety of the people of Michigan is a Public Function,
`
`traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State. The State of Michigan has enacted its
`
`public health code, MCL 125.3101 et seq., which states as its purpose:
`
`AN ACT to protect and promote the public health; to codify, revise, consolidate,
`classify, and add to the laws relating to public health....
`
`HFHS has no duty, or right to violate the liberty protected by the Constitution of the
`
`
`83.
`
`United States to fulfill a function of our duly elected State Government. HFHS may not act to
`
`implement purely public policy and avoid Constitutional scrutiny when doing so.
`
`84.
`
`Private entities have no role in determining policy as it relates to public functions such
`
`as, the Administration of Schools, Environmental Health, Law Enforcement, Child Protective
`
`Services, Welfare Benefit Administration, and the like. Each of these functions are
`
`traditionally, exclusively handled by the public sector. When HFHS undertakes to determine
`
`public health policy, it becomes an actor under color of state law exposing its activity to
`
`Constitutional review.
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiffs seek all remedies available pursuant to Federal Law for the claims states
`
`pursuant to Count I of this Complaint.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MANDATE HAS VIOLATED 14TH AMENDMENT LIBERTY
`
`GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 09/06/21 Page 15 of 17
`
`AMERICA
`
`86. Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`87. Defendants’ Mandate violates the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
`
`United States Constitution which includes the right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity
`
`as referenced in Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`88.
`
`It is a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The test is whether it was deemed
`
`fundamental in our nation’s history legal traditions and practices, Washington v. Glucksberg,
`
`521 U.S. 702 (1997). The Court in Cruzan determined that refusal of medical treatment was
`
`fundamental.
`
`89. Defendants have no compelling interest that justifies mandatory vaccination, as the
`
`novel, gene-modifying injections have been shown to be ineffective, cause injury, and death.
`
`90. Defendants claim the protection of their patients as a goal for the Mandate, but this
`
`argument is illogical. If the ‘vaccines are effective’, the vaccinated bear no risk created by the
`
`unvaccinated. In a hospital setting this is even less so, because every unvaccinated individual
`
`admitted to the health care facility can be given access to the ‘vaccine’ upon admission if they
`
`so choose. Mandating vaccination has no real, substantial relation to protecting public, or
`
`private health.
`
`COUNT III
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`91. Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`92. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Mandate implemented by Defendants is
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 09/06/21 Page 16 of 17
`
`unenforceable because it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution United States of
`
`America, subjects HFHS employees to physical harm and causes money damages to Plaintiffs.
`
`93. Defendants’ actions are unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious. Defendants have no legal
`
`right to coercively Mandate medical treatment in order to promote “public health”.
`
`94. The protection and promotion of “public health” is traditionally the exclusive
`
`prerogative of the State of Michigan pursuant to the Michigan Public Health Code, MCL
`
`125.3101 et seq.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
`
`95. Declare Defendants’ Mandate unconstitutional on its face.
`
`96. Declare Defendants’ Mandate unconstitutional as applied to each Plaintiff.
`
`97. Enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Mandate on its face, or as applied.
`
`98. Grant Plaintiffs their costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 4, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kyle J. VonAllmen
`Kyle J. VonAllmen P-52776
`VonAllmen & Associates, PLLC
`P.O. Box 1080
`Clarkston, MI 48347
`Phone: 248-930-8456
`kvonallmen@vonallmenlaw.com
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`/s/ Thomas Renz
`Thomas Renz
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12078-TGB-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 09/06/21 Page 17 of 17
`
`(Ohio Bar ID: 98645)
`1907 W. State St. #162
`Fremont, OH 43420
`Phone: 419-351-4248
`renzlawllc@gmail.com
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`(Admission pending Pro Hac Vice)
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`