(PC) Luedtke v. Ciolli ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES LUEDTKE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00406-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 CIOLLI, et al., (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff James Luedtke (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 20 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff initiated this action on March 19, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 21 Plaintiff has not yet submitted a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, (see ECF 22 No. 9), and the complaint has not yet been screened. 23 On April 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a court order. (ECF No. 10.) 24 Plaintiff alleges that inmates at his current institution are being served food that is inedible and 25 does not meet the minimum daily calorie requirements for inmates. Plaintiff further alleges that 26 beginning April 1, 2020, Defendant Ciolli and other BOP staff have reduced calories from 1200 27 calories per inmate per day, to 800 calories per inmate per day, as a result of austerity measures 28 related to the coronavirus. Plaintiff requests that the Court “order the modification of 28 C.F.R. 1 547 to require the Bureau of Prisons to provide each prisoner with 2000 calories per day, and that 2 the modification include the requirement that any and all food and drink served to prisoners by 3 the Bureau of Prisons meet any and all guidelines and standards set by the USDA.” (Id. at 3.) 4 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of a special master to this case, and the appointment of an 5 independent (non-Bureau of Prisons employee) certified dietitian to oversee food service at USP 6 Atwater. (Id. at 3–4.) 7 The Court construes the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction. 8 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 9 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 10 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 11 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 12 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 13 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 14 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 15 omitted). 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 17 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 18 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 19 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 20 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 21 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 22 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 23 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 24 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 25 Federal right.” 26 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 27 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 28 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 1 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 2 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 3 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 4 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 5 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 6 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 7 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 8 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 9 As Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has 10 shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, 11 and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal 12 jurisdiction over Defendant Ciolli, any of his subordinates, and any other prison staff at Plaintiff’s 13 current institution who might be responsible for the type, quality, or quantity of food served to 14 inmates. 15 Further, Plaintiff alleges that these “coronavirus austerity measures” have been 16 implemented at all federal prisons in the United States, not just his current institution. To grant 17 Plaintiff’s request to modify a federal code to apply to all federal prisons is simply beyond the 18 scope of the Court’s current jurisdiction in this action. 19 II. Recommendation 20 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 21 injunction, (ECF No. 10), be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 22 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 24 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 25 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 27 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 28 /// 1 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 2 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: April 15, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28