Roberts Amended As Filed

Case: 2:20-cv-00054-WOB-CJS Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/14/20 Page: 1 of 19 - Page ID#: 70
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY (at Covington)
THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS :
c/o Christopher Wiest, Esq.
25 Town Center Blvd, STE 104 :
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
:
AND
:
RANDALL DANIEL
c/o Christopher Wiest, Esq. :
25 Town Center Blvd, STE 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017 :
AND
:
SALLY O’BOYLE
c/o Christopher Wiest, Esq. :
25 Town Center Blvd, STE 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017 :
On behalf of themselves and :

All others similarly situated
:
PLAINTIFFS
:
v.
:
HON. ROBERT NEACE
2970 Union Square :
Burlington, KY 41005
In His Official Capacity Only as Boone Co. :
Attorney
:
On behalf of himself and all other
County Attorneys :
AND
:
HON. ANDREW BESHEAR
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100 :
Frankfort, KY 40601
In His Official Capacity Only :
AND :
1
ERIC FRIEDLANDER :
275 E. Main Street, 5W-A
Frankfort, KY 40621 :
In His Official Capacity Only
:
DEFENDANTS :
AMENDED VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
Plaintiffs Theodore Joseph Roberts (“TJ”), Randall Daniel (“Randall”), and Sally O’Boyle
(“Sally”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), for their Verified Class Action Complaint for Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief (the “Complaint”), state and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action involves the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights, as well as the rights set forth in Article IV of the Constitution regarding privileges and
immunities, by the official capacity Defendants named herein. This action involves the
response actions by the official capacity Defendants herein to COVID-19 ( the disease
caused by the Coronavirus). Admittedly, COVID-19 presents a serious threat to public
health and, equally admittedly, Defendants have a degree of discretion available to them to
deal with this public health threat. Those tools, however, are not limitless. As the facts and
circumstances in this Complaint reveal, Defendants have gone too far, and beyond the limits
the Constitution permits.
2. Notably, of course, in times of public panic and fear, egregious violations of fundamental
rights have been permitted throughout the history of this Country. Korematsu v. United
States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Typically, it is only well after the fact that we have recognized
the error of doing so. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018).
2
PARTIES
3. Theodore Joseph Roberts (“TJ”) is a recent college graduate who has pursued work, both
paid and unpaid in the political arena. He is a devout Christian, and until the recent COVID-
19 outbreak, was a regular and frequent attendee at church, typically attending between once
a week to several times a week. He has sincerely held religious beliefs that in person
attendance at church is central to his faith. His official residence is at an apartment located in
Burlington, KY 41005, in Boone County, Kentucky, where he is registered to vote and where
his vehicle is registered to. Nevertheless, until December, 2019, he stayed in the dormitories
at Transylvania University. After that, and to the present, he has stayed with his
grandparents at an address at East Bend Road, in Burlington, Kentucky, also in Boone
County, Kentucky.
4. Randall Daniel resides in Shepherdsville, Kentucky, in Bullitt County, County. He has
sincerely held religious beliefs that in person attendance at church is central to his faith.
Until the recent COVID-19 outbreak, he was a regular and frequent attendee at church,
typically attending every Sunday.
5. Sally O’Boyle resides in Morehead, KY 40351, in Rowan County, Kentucky. She has
sincerely held religious beliefs that in person attendance at church is central to her faith.
Until the recent COVID-19 outbreak, she was a regular and frequent attendee at church,
typically attending every Sunday.
6. Defendant Hon. Robert Neace is the duly elected Boone County Attorney, who is duly
authorized to bring and file misdemeanor cases in and for Boone County Kentucky. He is
sued in his official capacity only, and is sued in a representative official capacity under FRCP
23 for all other county attorneys in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
3
7. Defendant Hon. Andrew Beshear is the duly elected Governor of Kentucky. He is also sued
in his official capacity only.
8. Defendant Eric Friedlander is the acting Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family
Services, and is also sued in his official capacity only.
9. Among other things, Defendants enforce and are charged with the enforcement or
administration of Kentucky’s laws under KRS 39A, and KRS 220, including the orders and
actions complained of herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. Subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs in this
action is conferred on this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 28 U.S.C.
§1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and other applicable law.
11. Venue in this District and division is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 and other
applicable law, because much of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights
occurred in counties within this District within Kentucky, and future deprivations of their
Constitutional Rights are threatened and likely to occur in this District.
Additional Allegations Concerning Standing
12. Defendants are empowered, charged with, and authorized to enforce and carry out
Kentucky’s emergency power laws and health related laws under K.R.S. 39A and KRS
Chapter 220. Moreover, Defendants actually do enforce and administer these laws.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
Background on Kentucky’s Responses to COVID-19 to date
4
13. On March 6, 2020, Governor Andrew Beshear issued a state of emergency Executive Order
2020-215. Among other things, this Order declared an emergency for COVID-19 in and for
Kentucky. See Exhibit A, hereto.
14. Throughout March, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees issued a number of
recommendations to persons and businesses that are not challenged in this action concerning
COVID-19.
15. On March 16, 2020, in response to COVID-19, the Governor and/or his designees limited
restaurants to carry-out or pickup or delivery service only. See Exhibit B, hereto.
16. On March 17, 2020, in response to COVID-19, the Governor and/or his designees shut down
certain businesses that involved public congregation, while leaving open a number of other
businesses deemed “essential”. See Exhibit C, hereto. These “essential” businesses that
were permitted to remain open included industrial manufacturing, construction, retail,
consumer goods, gas stations, and hotels.
17. On March 19, 2020, in response to COVID-19, the Governor and/or his designees prohibited
some, but not all, public gatherings. See Exhibit D, hereto. On the one hand, the Order
provided that “[a]ll mass gatherings are hereby prohibited.” “[m]ass gatherings” included
“any event or convening that brings together groups of individuals, including, but not limited
to, community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts;
festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities.” The order then exempted a
number of activities from this definition. For the avoidance of doubt, a mass gathering does
not include normal operations at airports, bus and train stations, medical facilities, libraries,
shopping malls and centers, or other spaces where persons may be in transit. It also does not
5
include typical office environments, factories, or retail or grocery stores where large numbers
of people are present, but maintain appropriate social distancing.1
18. On March 22, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees shut down additional “non-life
sustaining” retail establishments to in-person traffic, but left other “life sustaining” retail
open. See Exhibit E, hereto.
19. On March 23, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees banned most2 elective medical
procedures. See Exhibit F, hereto.
20. On March 25, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees shut down additional businesses for
in-person work, while leaving others open. See Exhibit G, hereto.
21. On March 30, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees banned out of state travel with four
exceptions: (i) when required for employment; (ii) to obtain groceries, medicine, or other
necessary supplies; (iii) to seek or obtain care by a licensed healthcare provider; (iv) to
provide care for dependents or the elderly or other vulnerable persons; or (v) when required
by court order. See Exhibit H, hereto.
22. On April 2, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees expanded the Exhibit H Order, which
places anyone coming from out of state, subject to exceptions, into quarantine. See Exhibit
I, hereto. Collectively, Exhibits H and I are known as the “Travel Ban.”
1
Yet another notable exception appears to be the Governor’s own daily press conference, where
reporters and members of the media gather daily in a “do as I say, not as I do” scenario.
2
A notable exception, though it does not appear on the face of the Order itself, is the provision of
abortion services by Kentucky’s abortion providers. Witnesses have photographed the continued
operation of these businesses throughout this crisis, unimpeded, often without social distancing,
and in crowded conditions.
6
23. And on April 8, 2020, the Governor and/or his designees placed further restrictions on retail
establishments that limited shopping to one adult per household (with exceptions such as for
dependent children). See Exhibit J, hereto.
24. Most of the aforementioned executive orders reference K.R.S. 39A and/or K.R.S. Chapter
214 as authority for their promulgation.
25. Both of those Chapters contain criminal penalties, such as K.R.S. 39A.990, establishing as a
Class A misdemeanor any violations of orders issued under that Chapter, and K.R.S.
220.990, which generally provides as a Class B misdemeanor for any violations of orders
under that Chapter. K.R.S. 39A.190 gives police officers authority to “arrest without a
warrant any person violating or attempting to violate in the officer’s presence any order or
administrative regulation made pursuant to” KRS Chapter 39A.3
The Plaintiffs’ Activities
26. Plaintiffs reincorporate the preceding Paragraphs as if fully written herein.
27. On Sunday April 12, 2020, Easter Sunday, Plaintiffs TJ Roberts, Randall Daniel, and Sally
O’Boyle attended Easter church service at Maryville Baptist Church, in Hillview, Bullitt
County Kentucky.
28. They each did so pursuant to sincerely held religious beliefs that in-person church attendance
was required, particularly on Easter Sunday.
29. Each ensured appropriate social distancing and took other measures appropriate for the
circumstances in accordance with CDC Guidelines, while at the service.4 Among other
3
For the avoidance of all doubt, at this time, Plaintiffs are only challenging the prohibitions
against in-person church services, and Plaintiff Roberts is challenging the Travel Ban.
4
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/index.html (last visited
4/13/2020); https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/guidance-
community-faith-organizations.html (last visited 4/13/2020).
7
things, they each sat six feet away from other congregants at the service, wore masks
covering their faces, and did not have personal contact with others attending.
30. At the time, there were between 11 and 50 persons in Bullitt County5 with a COVID-19
diagnosis, out of a population of 81,676.6 In other words, 0.06% of the population had a
diagnosis.
31. At the time, no one attending the Maryville Baptist Church was diagnosed with COVID-19,
including the Plaintiffs, and no evidence exists that anyone with COVID-19 was in
attendance at any of the April 12, 2020 Easter services.
32. When Plaintiffs TJ Roberts, Randall Daniel, and Sally O’Boyle exited the service, they found
on their windshield the following notice (“Quarantine and Prosecution Notice”), placed there
by Kentucky State Troopers:
5
https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19 (last visited 4/13/2020)
6
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/bullittcountykentucky,KY/PST045218 (last
visited 4/13/2020).
8
33. In his evening briefings, the Governor made clear that he was going to target religious
services for these notices, apart from other gatherings. Based on the activity of the Kentucky
State Police on April 12, 2020, the Governor carried out his threat.
34. Kentucky State Police have solely been dispatched by the Governor, and those reporting to
him and acting at his behest, to harass, charge, intimidate, and threaten the churchgoers from
Maryville Baptist Church and other church services, and not to any other public gatherings,
including, without limitation, the Governor’s own public daily gathering where he gives his
press release.
35. Among other things, the Quarantine and Prosecution Notice requires a self-quarantine of two
weeks, and threatens criminal action against any vehicle owner whose vehicle was found at
9
the church, including each of the Plaintiffs. It does so regardless of whether: (i) any Plaintiff
has contracted the disease; (ii) there is any particular assessment of the likelihood of
contracting the disease from the activity in question; and (iii) Plaintiffs took the safety
precautions as described above so as to make their contracting the disease unlikely.
36. None of the Plaintiffs have displayed any symptoms of the COVID-19 disease, and, to the
best of their knowledge, they do not have and have not contracted the COVID-19 disease.
37. All of the Plaintiffs refuse to self-quarantine as required by the Quarantine and Prosecution
Notice, unless or until they have a diagnosis of them having contracted COVID-19, which
none of them have.
38. Plaintiffs TJ Roberts, Randall Daniel, and Sally O’Boyle reasonably fear prosecution if they
should attend further church services in light of the notice.
39. Further, all Plaintiffs fear prosecution and/or the equivalent of house arrest with quarantine,
in light of the Quarantine and Prosecution Notice.
40. Absent the Travel Ban, Plaintiff TJ Roberts, who resides and lives in Boone County, would
temporarily travel to Ohio, in contravention of the Travel Ban, to: (i) conduct unpaid
volunteer work all while complying with social distancing requirements; (ii) recreate all
while complying with social distancing requirements; (iii) associate with others in Ohio all
while practicing social distancing requirements; (iv) to visit Mr. Bruns office for the purpose
of pursuing this lawsuit; and (v) due to the proximity of Plaintiff to the border, take trips to
Indiana and/or Ohio for a variety of purposes, including simply to drive through Indiana
and/or parts of Ohio to reach other locations in Kentucky, all while practicing social
distancing requirements. All of the aforementioned activities are currently permitted under
Ohio’s and Indiana’s COVID-19 response actions.
10
41. The Travel Ban, Quarantine and Prosecution Notice, and other executive orders issued by the
Governor do not provide a process by which the individual Kentuckian will be notified if
they are charged or accused of a violation of the orders, do not provide any mechanism to
challenge or appeal any such determinations, and do not provide any process at all to
challenge the facts and circumstances of such orders.
42. The Travel Ban, Quarantine and Prosecution Notice, and other executive orders issued by the
Governor do not provide any right or opportunity for the individual Kentuckian to be heard if
the individual is ordered to be quarantined, or detained, or otherwise punished for violating
the Travel Ban. They also do not provide the individual Kentuckian with a right to be heard
by a fair and independent tribunal if the citizen is ordered to be quarantined, or detained, or
otherwise punished for violating the orders. The orders provide no right to appeal a
quarantine, detention, or punishment or to appeal an order to quarantine pursuant to the
orders.
43. The orders do not provide Kentuckians with the right to present evidence, the right to know
the evidence opposing them, the right to cross-examine, the opportunity for counsel, or the
right to have a record.
44. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Beshear and the other Defendants have actively
enforced the Governor’s Executive Orders, including ordering sheriff’s deputies to forcibly
quarantine at least one Kentuckian who attempted to travel.
45. Upon information and belief, multiple Kentuckians in Louisville have been ordered to wear
ankle monitors to ensure their government-imposed quarantine, even though they have not
tested positive for COVID-19.
11
46. On the same day that the Governor instituted the Travel Ban, he also created the “COVID-19
Reporting Hotline” and requested that Kentuckians call it “for complaints about non-
compliance with coronavirus mandates.”
The Fundamental Right To Travel
47. The United States Supreme Court held that the “constitutional right to travel from one State
to another” is firmly embedded in this nation’s jurisprudence. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489,
498 (1999) (citing U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S.747, 757 (1966)). In 1958, the United States
Supreme Court found that “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles,
357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958). “The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually
unqualified.” Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 176 (1978) (citing United States v.
Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-758 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105-106 (1971)).
“[T]he constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the
highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position
fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 748
n.1 (1966). “For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are
one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as
members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part
of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.” Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 492
(1849) (Taney, C.J., dissenting).
The Freedom of Religion
48. The First Amendment protects the “free exercise” of religion, and fundamental to this
protection is the right to gather and worship. See W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319
12
U.S. 624, 638 (1943) (“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects
from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities
and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts ... [such as
the] freedom of worship and assembly.”).This protection was incorporated against the states
in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Because of this fundamental protection, “a
law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo
the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S.
520, 546 (1993). The requirements to satisfy this scrutiny are so high that the government
action will only survive this standard in rare cases and the government bears the burden of
meeting this exceptionally demanding standard. Id. “[T]he minimum requirement of
neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face.” Id.at 533.
49. Defendants’ prohibition of any in person church services, in the name of fighting Covid-19,
is not generally applicable. There are numerous exceptions to the March 19, 2020 Order,
such as an exception for factories, or attending establishments like shopping malls, where far
more people come into closer contact with less oversight.
Class Allegations
51. The actions and violations herein complained of affect millions of Kentuckians.
52. Pursuant to FRCP 23(a), (i) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (with millions of potential Plaintiffs); (ii) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class; (iii) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class; and (iv) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
13
53. Pursuant to FRCP 23(b): (i) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class
members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
party opposing the class; (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a
practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the
individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their
interests; and (ii) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that
apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
54. Plaintiffs seek both a Plaintiff class, consisting of those persons who desire to violate the
prohibitions on gathering for in-person church service, but who would practice appropriate
social distancing if permitted to do so, as well as those persons who desire to violate the
travel ban, and a Defendant class consisting of the named Defendants and all other County
Attorneys in Kentucky.
Injunctive Relief
55. Plaintiffs have and continue to have their fundamental constitutional rights violated by these
official capacity Defendants, each of whom is personally involved with the enforcement
and/or threatened enforcement of the challenged orders. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed
if injunctive relief is not issued. Further, the public interest is served by the vindication of
constitutional rights, and the weighing of harms warrants issuing injunctive relief.
COUNT I – Violation of the First Amendment – Freedom of Religion (42 U.S.C. 1983)
14
57. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the “free exercise” of religion.
Fundamental to this protection is the right to gather and worship. See W. Va. State Bd. of
Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943) (“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond
the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by
the courts...[such as the] freedom of worship and assembly.”). The Free Exercise Clause was
incorporated against the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
58. As the Supreme Court has noted, “a law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not
of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Church of the Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Inc.v. Hialeah, 508U.S. 520, 546 (1993).
59. Defendants have prohibited in -person religious services, have threatened criminal penalties
for holding such services, and have thus substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
“[T]he minimum requirement of neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face.” Id. at
533.
60. Defendants’ restrictions have specifically and explicitly targeted in-person religious
gatherings and are thus not neutral on their face.
61. Relatedly, government action is not generally applicable if its prohibitions substantially
under-include non-religiously motivated conduct that might endanger the same governmental
interest that the law is designed to protect. Id.at 542-46.
62. Defendants’ prohibition of drive-in church services in the name of enforcing social
distancing is not generally applicable. There are numerous exceptions to the orders that
Defendants are not cracking down on, such as establishments like retail stores for essential
15
goods, factory work in critical sectors, and other examples, where far more people come into
closer contact with less oversight.
63. Laws and government actions that burden religious practice and are either not neutral or not
generally applicable must satisfy a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly
tailored to achieve that end. Id. at 546.
64. Defendants’ mandate is not “narrowly tailored” because the ban on in-person religious
services is absolute, not accounting for services, like that attended by the Plaintiffs, where the
CDC and Kentucky Cabinet guidelines are carefully adhered to, and thus satisfy the public
health concerns to which the guidelines are directed.
65. Requiring Plaintiffs to abstain from religious gatherings, despite substantial modifications to
satisfy the public health interests at stake, violates Plaintiffs’ Constitutional right to free
exercise of their religion.
66. By issuing and enforcing the orders banning in-person church service gatherings, Governor
Beshear and the other Defendants, each acting under color of state law, are depriving and
will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Kentuckians of rights secured
by the United States Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT II – Violation of the Fundamental Right to Travel – (42 U.S.C. 1983) (Plaintiff
TJ Roberts)
68. The Travel Bans violate the right to substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fifth,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that the Travel Bans,
both on their face and as they would be applied to Plaintiffs, impinge upon the fundamental
liberty interest in one’s right to interstate travel. See U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 747 (1966).
16
69. The right of adults to engage in interstate travel is a fundamental liberty interest. That right is
one that is, objectively speaking, deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition and one
that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
70. The Travel Bans are not narrowly tailored, nor are they the least restrictive means for
advancing whatever governmental interest that the Defendants may clam the law advances.
71. The Travel Bans significantly hinder, if not deprive, many individuals from their ability and
right to interstate travel.
72. The Travel Bans have and will cause a chilling effect on interstate travel.
73. By issuing and enforcing the Travel Bans, Governor Beshear and the other Defendants, each
acting under color of state law, are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated Kentuckians of rights secured by the United States Constitution, including
Article IV, Section II, as well as the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT III – Procedural Due Process – (42 U.S.C. 1983)
75. “[T]here can be no doubt that at a minimum [procedural due process] require[s] that
deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity
for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust
Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).
76. “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349
U.S. 133, 136 (1955).
77. “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from
the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Thus, in deciding what
17
process constitutionally is due in various contexts, the Court repeatedly has emphasized that
“procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding
process....” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319, 344 (1976)).
78. By issuing and enforcing the Travel Bans and other orders, without any process to appeal a
determination or an order to quarantine, Governor Beshear and the other Defendants herein
are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Kentuckians
of the right to procedural due process secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, thereby causing them harm.
79. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Travel Bans,
both on their face and as applied, and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the
Travel Bans.
Generally
80. Defendants abused the authority of their respective offices and, while acting under color of
law and with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ established rights, used their offices to violate
Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws.
81. Thus, under 42 U.S.C 1983, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief. Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiffs further seek their reasonable attorney fees and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as prayed for, including:
A. That this Court issue a declaration that the challenged orders are unconstitutional.
18
B. That this Court enter permanent injunctive relief to prohibit enforcement of the
challenged orders.
C. Certify a class as provided in the Complaint
D. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs in this action, including reasonable attorney fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
E. Such other relief as this Court shall deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher Wiest___________

Christopher Wiest (KBA 90725)
Chris Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC
25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
859/486-6850 (v)
513/257-1895 (c)
859/495-0803 (f)
[email protected]
/s/Thomas Bruns_____________
Thomas Bruns (KBA 84985)
4750 Ashwood Drive, STE 200
Cincinnati, OH 45241
[email protected]
513-312-9890
/s/Robert A. Winter, Jr. __________

Robert A. Winter, Jr. (KBA #78230)
P.O. Box 175883
Fort Mitchell, KY 41017-5883
(859) 250-3337
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19
Case: 2:20-cv-00054-WOB-CJS Doc #: 6-1 Filed: 04/14/20 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 89
OB-CJS Doc #: 6-1 Filed: 04/14/20 Pa
,,-
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES

OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES
Andy Beshear 275 East Main Street, 5W-B Eric C. Friedlander

Governor Frankfort, KY 40621 Acting Secretary
502-564-7905
502-564-7573 Wesley W. Duke
www.chfs.ky.gov
General Counsel
ORDER
March 19, 2020
On March 6, 2020, Governor Andy Beshear signed Executive Order 2020-215, declaring a state of
emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of COVID-19 virus, a public health emergency.
Pursuant to the authority in KRS 194A.025, KRS 214.020, KRS Chapter 39A, and Executive Orders
2020-215 and 2020-243, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Department of Public Health,
hereby orders the following directives to reduce and slow the spread of COVID-19:
1. All mass gatherings are hereby prohibited.
2. Mass gatherings include any event or convening that brings together groups of
individuals, including, but not limited to, community, civic, public, leisure,
faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions;
fundraisers; and similar activities.
3. For the avoidance of doubt, a mass gathering does not include normal
operations at airports, bus and train stations, medical facilities, libraries,
shopping malls and centers, or other spaces where persons may be in transit. It
also does not include typical office environments, factories, or retail or
grocery stores where large numbers of people are present, but maintain
appropriate social distancing.
4. Any gathering, regardless of whether it is a mass gathering prohibited under

this Order, shall to the extent practicable implement Centers for Disease
Control guidance, including:
• maintaining a distance of 6 feet between persons;
KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

VERIFICATION
I, Theodore Joseph Roberts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, declare under penalty of perjury that I
have reviewed the foregoing Complaint, that I am competent to testify in this matter, that the
facts contained therein are true and correct, and are based information personally known and
observed by me.
Executed on _____4/14/2020_____________.
___ ________________________
Theodore Joseph Roberts

Roberts Amended As Filed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roberts Amended As Filed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roberts Amended As Filed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 2:20-cv-00054-WOB-CJS Doc #: 6 Filed: 04/14/20 Page: 1 of 19 - Page ID#: 70

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

On behalf of themselves and :

AMENDED VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

and Injunctive Relief (the “Complaint”), state and allege as follows:

caused by the Coronavirus). Admittedly, COVID-19 presents a serious threat to public

the Constitution permits.

grandparents at an address at East Bend Road, in Burlington, Kentucky, also in Boone

4. Randall Daniel resides in Shepherdsville, Kentucky, in Bullitt County, County. He has

typically attending every Sunday.

typically attending every Sunday.

23 for all other county attorneys in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

in his official capacity only.

Services, and is also sued in his official capacity only.

actions complained of herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

applicable law, because much of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights

Constitutional Rights are threatened and likely to occur in this District.

Additional Allegations Concerning Standing

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

Background on Kentucky’s Responses to COVID-19 to date

Kentucky. See Exhibit A, hereto.

restaurants to carry-out or pickup or delivery service only. See Exhibit B, hereto.

were permitted to remain open included industrial manufacturing, construction, retail,

consumer goods, gas stations, and hotels.

of people are present, but maintain appropriate social distancing.1

open. See Exhibit E, hereto.

procedures. See Exhibit F, hereto.

in-person work, while leaving others open. See Exhibit G, hereto.

by court order. See Exhibit H, hereto.

I, hereto. Collectively, Exhibits H and I are known as the “Travel Ban.”

dependent children). See Exhibit J, hereto.

214 as authority for their promulgation.

administrative regulation made pursuant to” KRS Chapter 39A.3

The Plaintiffs’ Activities

26. Plaintiffs reincorporate the preceding Paragraphs as if fully written herein.

was required, particularly on Easter Sunday.

attendance at any of the April 12, 2020 Easter services.

by Kentucky State Troopers:

precautions as described above so as to make their contracting the disease unlikely.

none of them have.

should attend further church services in light of the notice.

in light of the Quarantine and Prosecution Notice.

Ohio’s and Indiana’s COVID-19 response actions.

challenge the facts and circumstances of such orders.

the individual is ordered to be quarantined, or detained, or otherwise punished for violating

by a fair and independent tribunal if the citizen is ordered to be quarantined, or detained, or

quarantine, detention, or punishment or to appeal an order to quarantine pursuant to the

right to have a record.

quarantine at least one Kentuckian who attempted to travel.

tested positive for COVID-19.

compliance with coronavirus mandates.”

The Fundamental Right To Travel

(1849) (Taney, C.J., dissenting).

The Freedom of Religion

meeting this exceptionally demanding standard. Id. “[T]he minimum requirement of

neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face.” Id.at 533.

more people come into closer contact with less oversight.