RYAN v. ROBINSON et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM ORDER directing the Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet; ORDERED that Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; ORDERED that Defendants shall file, within 10 days of the date of this Order, a submission addressing BOP's efforts to meet Plaintiff's nutritional needs and submit any associated medical request slips or medical records from the last 60 days under seal; ORDERED that the Court construes Plaintiffs' 49 Motion for Reconsideration as a motion for a temporary restraining order and that motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/4/2025. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
TIMOTHY RYAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. ROBINSON, et al,
Defendants.
______________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 22-1175 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Copy of
the Docket Sheet and to Reconsider Denial of Injunctive Relief, Docket No. 49;
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Docket No. 50);
and Defendants’ Request for Clarification Regarding Representation Process and
Extension of Time to File Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint (Def’s Letter Request”), Docket No. 51. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s request for a docket sheet; DENY Plaintiff’s request for
reconsideration of injunctive relief (“Mot. for TRO”), 1 and GRANT in part
Defendants’ request for clarification and an extension of time to file a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s motions for relief as moot because they involved claims that
had not yet been alleged in the operative complaint and were difficult to understand. (Order,
Docket No. 43.) The Court, therefore, will treat Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as a
motion for a temporary restraining order under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A), with respect to
new claims raised in the Second Amended Complaint.

1

I.

BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2024, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims in the

amended complaint with prejudice, denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to
dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and granted Plaintiff leave to
file a second amended complaint (“SAC”). Opinion, Docket No. 43. The Court also
denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motions for pro bono counsel, and dismissed his
first, second and third motions for relief as moot. Id. at 13, 14. Finally, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to file a concise summary of his claims within 30 days, and ordered
Defendants to file a statement with the Court, within ten days, advising whether
Plaintiff’s medical needs were being addressed. Id. at 15.
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff complied with the Court’s order to file a concise summary of his claims

by filing his seconded amended complaint. Second Amended Compl. (“SAC”),
Docket No. 46. In response to Defendants’ request for clarification of the claims in
the SAC, the Court construes the SAC 2 to allege FTCA claims in paragraphs 1-4, and
6. In paragraph 5 of the SAC, Plaintiff alleges claims under Bivens, 3 the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”), and claims for declaratory and equitable relief. The Bivens claims in

The Court liberally construes the SAC pursuant to its authority to sua sponte review
complaints filed by prisoners who have been granted IFP status.
3
In Bivens, the Supreme Court implied a damages remedy for a Fourth Amendment
claim against federal actors. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics. 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). Plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, which does not apply to federal actors alleged to have violated the Constitution.
2

2

paragraph 5 are asserted against 4 Food Service Administrators Ardoline and Marcay,
Warden Rachel Thompson, Associate Warden Dimarcurio, Medical Director
Ahmedi, Ravi Sood, Regional Director Amy Boncher, and John Doe Regional
Administrative Remedy Coordinator. The Court has not considered the merits of
these claims, and Defendants shall have 60 days from the date of entry of this Order
to file a responsive pleading to the SAC.
In response to Plaintiff’s prior requests for immediate relief on claims that were
dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing his SAC, Defendants complied with the
Court’s Order to provide a statement concerning Plaintiff’s current medical needs and
the care provided. Letter, Docket No. 45. In the SAC, however, Plaintiff alleges he
is starving, with significant weight loss and allergic reactions of vomiting, bleeding and
anaphylaxis caused by BOP staff’s failure to provide him sufficient nutrition that
complies with his Kosher religious diet and his food allergies. Plaintiff requests
immediate relief in the form of release from confinement or immediate changes to his
diet.
Where a plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order without notice to the
adverse parties, as here where not all defendants have been served with the SAC,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(A) requires plaintiffs to submit “specific facts
in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party
can be heard in opposition[.]” The SAC constitutes a verified complaint because it is
Plaintiff’s SAC is handwritten and the defendants’ names are unclear. The Court
adopts the spelling of the defendants’ names from Defendants’ letter, Docket No. 51.

4

3

signed under the penalty of perjury. Plaintiff alleges his weight has dropped from 185
to where it now fluctuates between 135 and 150 pounds, and he feels hungry, dizzy
and weak and has difficulty carrying out daily activities. The allegations are serious
but they do not show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will occur
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition, and the Court denies Plaintiff’s
TRO request without prejudice.
The Court will, however, direct BOP to supplement their submission
concerning the efforts to meet Plaintiff’s medical needs with a submission on the efforts
to provide Plaintiff adequate nutrition considering his food allergies and religious diet.
If Plaintiff has requested or received any medical treatment for allergies or inadequate
nutrition in the last 60 days, Defendants shall submit those records under seal. If
warranted, the Court will reconsider Plaintiff’s request for a TRO.
IT IS therefore on this 4th day of March 2025,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet in this
matter; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint, as the claims have been construed by the Court above,
within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file, within 10 days of the date of this Order,
a submission addressing BOP’s efforts to meet Plaintiff’s nutritional needs, taking into
account his food allergies and religious diet, and submit any associated medical request
slips or medical records from the last 60 days under seal; and it is further
4

ORDERED that the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration
(Docket No. 49) as a motion for a temporary restraining order, and that motion is
DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular
U.S. Mail.
s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Chief United States District Judge

5