# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5218 September Term, 2023 1: 21-c v -022 20-TSC Filed O n: July 5, 20 24 Davi d J. Rudo me tkin, e t al.,

App ellees Alexande r L. Driskill,

App ellant
v . Lloyd J. A ustin, III, in h is capa city as t he Secret aryof

Defense , App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Kat sas, Ra o, a nd Childs, Circuit Ju dges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing, th e Rule 28 (j) letter, and the m otion to add a p arty, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion to add a p arty be d enie d. App ellantha s no t sho w n tha t “spe cial circumst ance s” justif y ad ding a p arty on a ppe al. S ee Mullane y v. And erson , 34 2 U.S . 41 5, 4 16-1 7 (19 52). It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s A ugust 1 7, 2 023 orde r dismissing th e ca se b e a f f irmed . A ppe llant h as n ot sh own thathe ha s stan ding to challen ge the gov ernm ent ’s v accine requireme nts. Se e S poke o, I nc. v. Robin s, 57 8 U.S. 3 30, 33 8 (20 16) (sta ndin g req uires a sho w ing thatthe ap pellan t ha s suf fered an injuryin fact, tha t th e inju ry is fairly trace able to the gov ernm ent ’s cond uct, and tha t it is likely to be redresse d b y

a favorable ju dicial de cision). W here , as here , a plaint if f see ks only injunctive an d d eclarat oryrelief , he “mu st sho w he is suf

fering an ongoing injury or faces an imm edia te t hrea t of injury.” Dearth v. Holde r, 64 1 F.3 d 4 99, 50 1 (D.C. Cir.

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5218 September Term, 2023
201 1). A ny past injury

to app ellantf rom an alleged p rior forcible vaccinat ion is insuf f icient t o e stab lish stan ding to seek decla ratory and injunct ive relief . S ee id. Moreover, ap pellan t do es n ot a rg ue tha t he is un able to obt ain e xem ption s f rom the governm ent ’s ongoing vaccine requirem ent s. A nd his argum ent s tha t th e governme nt w ill fo rcibly

vaccinate him in th e f utu re w hile a n e xem ption request is pen ding or is bein g adm inistratively

ap pea led a re ba sed only on sp ecula tion, w hich is in suf f icient t o esta blish inju ry . S ee Elec. Priv . In fo. Ctr. v . Pres. Ad v . Com m’n on Elect ion I nte gr ity , 878 F.3d 37 1, 3 79 (D.C. Cir. 2017 ). Ad dition ally , ap pellan t can notesta blish sta ndin g base d o n a lleged injury f rom the requireme nt t o f ile a n ew exem ption request every year, w hich is n ot a n a lleged injury upo n which his co mp laint is b ased . S ee Haase v. Sessio ns, 8 35 F.2d 90 2, 9 07 (D.C. Cir. 1987 ) (stating tha t “a p laintif f’s stan ding to pursu e a claim rests o n th e th eory of injury present ed in th e co mp laint”). Fina lly , app ellantha s no t con teste d th e d istrict court’s co nclusion tha t his ch allenge is m oot insofar as it con cerns t he now-rescind ed COVID-19 v accine requireme nt, and thu s he has forfeited an y

such argume nt. Se e Unite d S tate s ex rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ) (arg um ent s no t raised on ap pea l are forfeited ). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

Page 2