PLAINTIFF v. MUSK et al

District Of Columbia District Court
Judge:Christopher R Cooper
Case #: 1:25-cv-01288
Nature of Suit899 Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)
Case Filed:Apr 25, 2025
Last checked: Thursday May 01, 2025 1:05 AM EDT
Defendant
DERRIK ALLEN
Defendant
STEVEN BRAMMER
Defendant
VIVIAN HUTSON
Defendant
HEATHER IHLENFELDT
Defendant
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10
Defendant
ELON MUSK
Defendant
BROOKE ROLLINS
Defendant
PATRICIA ST. CLAIR
Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF


Docket last updated: 80 minutes ago
Monday, May 05, 2025
9 9 service Electronic Summons Issued as to AUSA,USAG Mon 05/05 2:50 PM
SUMMONS (10) Issued Electronically as to DERRIK ALLEN, STEVEN BRAMMER, VIVIAN HUTSON, HEATHER IHLENFELDT, ELON MUSK, BROOKE ROLLINS, PATRICIA ST. CLAIR, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General(zdp)
Related: [-]
Att: 1 Notice and Consent
8 8 cmp Request for Summons to Issue Mon 05/05 2:24 PM
REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by FENYANG AJAMU STEWART.(zdp)
Related: [-]
Att: 1 Summons
7 7 order Order on Motion for TRO Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction Mon 05/05 10:49 AM
MINUTE ORDER: The Court's May 2, 2025, Minute Order is hereby STRICKEN and Plaintiff's6 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED sua sponte. Plaintiff alleges two central harms: (1) the loss of his employment and (2) his resulting emotional and psychological distress. See Mot. at 1 ("The imminent action would cause Plaintiff...irreparable harm, including: Elimination of his position due to downsizing as a result of the [Deferred Resignation Program]" and "Emotional distress and exacerbation of PTSD related to forced offboarding."). Even assuming this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, neither of these alleged harms constitute irreparable injury warranting a TRO. First, the loss of employment, standing alone, is not irreparable because it is a harm that can be remedied through monetary compensation or reinstatement. See Sampson v. Murray , 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) ("Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm." (citation omitted)). As a federal employee in the competitive service, Plaintiff is entitled to review of certain personnel actions taken against him under the Civil Service Reform Act. See Elgin v. Dep't of Treasury , 567 U.S. 1, 5 (2012). He can, for example, appeal his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which can order him relief including reinstatement, backpay, and attorney's fees. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1204(a)(2), 7701(g)(1), 7512, 7513(d). Because any alleged injury flowing from the loss of his employment could be remedied through the existing statutory process, Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate irreparable harm based on the loss of employment, particularly given that he is currently on paid administrative leave. Nor, without further allegations of extraordinary circumstances, can his unspecific assertion of emotional distress support emergency intervention. See Dallas Safari Club v. Bernhardt , 453 F. Supp. 3d 391, 399400 (D.D.C. 2020) ("The boilerplate and conclusory quality of [plaintiffs'] declarations undercuts their claims of 'great' [emotional] harm."). Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to effect service of the summons and complaint on Defendants pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 5/5/2025. (lccrc2)
Related: [-]
Friday, May 02, 2025
utility Case Assigned/Reassigned Fri 05/02 12:45 PM
Case Assigned to Judge Christopher R. Cooper. (znmw)
Related: [-]
service Summons Issued as to AUSA,USAG Fri 05/02 1:23 PM
SUMMONS (1) Issued as to U.S. Attorney. (zjm)
Related: [-]
order .Order ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines Fri 05/02 4:21 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Defendants are hereby ordered to respond to Plaintiff's6 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by Friday, May 9, 2025. Plaintiff shall notify Defendants of this Order forthwith. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 5/2/2025. (lccrc2)
Related: [-]
Thursday, May 01, 2025
6 6 motion Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction Fri 05/02 12:41 PM
MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by FENYANG AJAMU STEWART. (znmw)
Related: [-]
5 5 cmp Complaint Fri 05/02 12:40 PM
COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number 209491) with Jury Demand filed by FENYANG AJAMU STEWART.(znmw)
Related: [-]
Att: 1 Exhibits,
Att: 2 Summons
4 4 respm Response to Order of the Court Fri 05/02 12:38 PM
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Minute Order on Sealed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym filed by FENYANG AJAMU STEWART. (znmw)
Related: [-]
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
order Order on Sealed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym Wed 04/30 2:02 PM
MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiff's2 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as it does not address the five-factor inquiry that applies to such motions, see In re Sealed Case , 971 F.3d 324, 326-27 (D.C. Cir. 2020); 2) Within fourteen days of the Court's Order, Plaintiff shall file either a new Motion that addresses the factors identified in In re Sealed Case or a Notice advising the Clerk of the Court whether he wishes to proceed under his true name, and, if so, he shall also file his2 Motion on the public docket as an appendix to that Notice; and 3) If Plaintiff does not file a new Motion or such Notice within fourteen days, the Clerk is directed to terminate the case. The factors identified in In re Sealed Case are: 1) whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; 2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or, even more critically, to innocent non-parties; 3) the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; 4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and, relatedly, 5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/30/2025. (lcjeb4)
Related: [-]
Friday, April 25, 2025
3 3 motion Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction Wed 04/30 1:28 PM
Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by PLAINTIFF. (zjd)
Related: [-]
Att: 1 Notice,
Att: 2 Text of Proposed Order #1,
Att: 3 Text of Proposed Order #2
2 2 motion Sealed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym Wed 04/30 1:21 PM
SEALED MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym, File Exhibits Under Seal, and File Electronically filed by PLAINTIFF. (zjd)
Related: [-]
Att: 1 Confidential Notice Informing the Court of the True Identity of Plaintiff,
Att: 2 Sealed Exhibits,
Att: 3 Text of Proposed Order
1 1 36 pgs cmp Complaint Wed 04/30 1:10 PM
COMPLAINT against DERRIK ALLEN, STEVEN BRAMMER, VIVIAN HUTSON, HEATHER IHLENFELDT, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, ELON MUSK, BROOKE ROLLINS, PATRICIA ST. CLAIR (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number 209491) with Jury Demand filed by PLAINTIFF. (Attachment: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (zjd)
Related: [-]