1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ALARIC STONE, ERIC JACKSON, and )

MICHAEL MARCENELLE, on behalf of ) 

themselves and all others similarly situated, ) 

) Case No. 

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, in his official ) 

capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, ) 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his ) 

official capacity as Secretary of Defense, )

LINDA L. FAGAN, in her official ) 

capacity as Commandant of the Coast Guard, and ) 

BRIAN K. PENOYER, in his official capacity ) 

as Assistant Commandant for Human ) 

Resources of the Coast Guard, ) 

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO CERTIFY CLASS, TO APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL, 

AND FOR CLASS-WIDE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 65, Plaintiffs Alaric Stone, Eric 

Jackson, and Michael Marcenelle (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated, hereby move (1) to certify a class (the “Class”), under Rule 23(b)(2), 

consisting of all members of the United States Coast Guard who (a) are subject to a mandate of 

the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or Coast Guard to receive a 

COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a request for religious accommodation regarding such 

mandate based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have received or will receive a 

purported final denial of such request from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland 

Security, or Coast Guard; (2) for appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel, under Rule 

4:22-cv-825-P

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 4 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 77
2 

23(g); and (3) for entry of a Class-wide temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary 

injunction, under Rule 65, restraining and enjoining Defendants and their agents, employees, and 

successors in office, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from 

enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with 

certain COVID-19 vaccine mandates—including Department of Defense’s August 24, 2021 

Order and the Coast Guard’s August 2021 Order, Coast Guard ALCOAST 305/21, Coast Guard 

ALCOAST 315/21, and Coast Guard ALCOAST 270/22 (collectively, the “Mandates”)—against 

Plaintiffs or any member of the Class,1 and enjoining Defendants and their agents, employees, 

and successors in office, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from 

taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs or any member of the Class on the basis of this 

lawsuit or of any Plaintiff’s or Class member’s request for religious accommodation related to 

the Mandates.2

The Class’s circumstances in this case are substantially similar to those in Navy SEALs 1-

26 v. Austin, No. 4:21-cv-0126-O, 2022 WL 1025144 (N.D. Tex. March 28, 2022), in which this 

Court issued a class-wide preliminary injunction against the military and in favor of religious 

service members objecting to the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, except this case 

involves the Coast Guard instead of the Navy. The Court should grant class-wide relief here for 

similar reasons: 

1. The Court should certify the Class because the Class is so numerous that joinder of all 

members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the Class, Plaintiffs’ 

                                                            

1

 The Class includes Plaintiffs. 

2 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, also seek relief as to 

Defendants’ violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. See Class Action Complaint, Count 

III and Count IV. The present motions do not seek relief as to these claims. Plaintiffs reserve the 

right to pursue such relief in the future if and as appropriate.

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 4 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 78
3 

claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the 

interest of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4). Defendants have acted or refused to act on 

grounds that apply generally to the Class, so that a temporary restraining order and preliminary 

and final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class 

as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 

2. The Court should appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel because they are 

qualified to and will diligently prosecute this action and will fairly and adequately represent the 

interests of the Class. 

3. The Court should enter a Class-wide injunction because the Class is likely to succeed 

on the merits of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and First Amendment claims, 

because, by policy, the Coast Guard—like the Navy—has granted zero requests for religious 

accommodation regarding the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates (other than for those 

already slated for separation or retirement), while granting exemption requests for secular 

reasons; the 1,200+ Class members face irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; the 

balance of hardships weighs in the Class’s favor; and a Class-wide injunction would not be 

adverse to the public interest. 

Plaintiffs rely on and incorporate the Memorandum in Support of the present motions and 

documents in support including declarations and exhibits thereto and Plaintiffs’ proposed order, 

all filed simultaneously herewith. 

Plaintiffs would consent to a partial stay of the Class-wide restraining order and 

injunction in part, insofar and only insofar as they preclude the Coast Guard from considering 

Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other 

operational decisions. See Austin v. Navy Seals 1-26, 142 S. Ct. 1301 (2022). 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 4 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 79
4 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order (1) certifying a Class 

consisting of all members of the United States Coast Guard who (a) are subject to a mandate of 

the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or Coast Guard to receive a 

COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a request for religious accommodation regarding such 

mandate based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have received or will receive a 

purported final denial of such request from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland 

Security, or Coast Guard; (2) appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel; (4) restraining and 

enjoining Defendants and their agents, employees, and successors in office, and all other persons 

in active concert or participation with them, from enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to 

enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with the Mandates against Plaintiffs or any member 

of the Class, and restraining and enjoining Defendants and their agents, employees, and 

successors in office, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from 

taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs or any member of the Class on the basis of this 

lawsuit or of any Plaintiff’s or Class member’s request for religious accommodation related to 

the Mandates; and (5) granting Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as the Court 

deems just and proper. 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 4 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 80
5 

Dated: September 16, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Charles W. Fillmore 

 

Stephen Crampton* Charles W. Fillmore 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Senior Counsel State Bar # 00785861 

PO Box 4506 H. Dustin Fillmore III 

Tupelo, MS 38803 State Bar # 06996010 

(662)255-9439 THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 

scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org 201 Main Street, Suite 700 

 Fort Worth, TX 76102 

Michael McHale* (817)332-2351 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Counsel chad@fillmorefirm.com 

10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110 dusty@fillmorefirm.com 

Omaha, NE 68114 

(402)501-8586 Nathan Loyd* 

mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

 5101 Old Highway 5, Box 442 

Adam S. Hochschild* Lebanon, GA 30146 

Hochschild Law Firm (559)744-3664

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel nathaniel.loyd@thomasmoresociety.org 

PO Box 401 

Plainfield, VT 05667 

(314)503-0326 

adam@hochschildlaw.com 

Mary Catherine Hodes* 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor 

Clayton, MO 63105 

(314)825-5725 

mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org 

Paul M. Jonna* 

LiMandri & Jonna LLP 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

P.O. Box 9120 

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 

(858)759-994 

pjonna@limandri.com 

* pro hac vice applications forthcoming 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 4 Filed 09/16/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 81
6 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

These motions are opposed. A telephone conference was held on September 16, 2022, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel Adam Hochschild and Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Stoltz conferred, and 

Mr. Stoltz stated that Defendants would oppose the motions. 

/s/ Charles W. Fillmore 

Charles W. Fillmore 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 4 Filed 09/16/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 82