MURSOLI-CABALLERO

v.

CARVAJAL

Plaintiff, Ana Gabriela Mursoli-Caballero, a federal prisoner, initiated this case by filing a “memorandum for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction” (Doc. 2; Motion), an order to show cause (Doc. 1; Show Cause Order), a motion for appointment of counsel and to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 3), and a motion to seal medical records (Doc. 4).1 Plaintiff has not filed a

COVID-19 (such as ensuring inmates can meaningfully distance from one another, placing infected inmates in quarantine, testing those exposed to the virus, providing proper medical care, and sanitizing common areas). Id. at 2, 5-7, 10-11.

Referencing the CARES act³ and the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, Plaintiff asserts the Warden’s “failure to transfer her to Home

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F. 3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). With respect to the second prerequisite, “the asserted irreparable injury ‘must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.’” Siegel, 234 F. 3d at 1176. Plaintiff does not carry her burden. First, she fails to assert facts showing she will suffer irreparable injury if an injunction does not issue. She merely alleges that, like everyone, she fears contracting COVID-19. But Plaintiff provides no facts showing she is more at risk than other inmates of contracting the virus. She says only in a conclusory manner that she is “a medically vulnerable inmate of high risk with serious illnesses that have a high morbidity and mortality if she contracts the [COVID-19] virus.” See Motion at 11. Plaintiff offers no facts supporting this statement, nor does she provide documentation showing she is particularly at risk. Second, Plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits of an underlying Bivens claim. A Bivens action is meant to have a deterrent effect on federal actors who violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. As such, the proper defendant in a Bivens action is the individual officer who allegedly deprived a federal inmate of her constitutional rights, and the appropriate remedy is damages, not injunctive relief. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 21 (1980) (recognizing Bivens extends damages remedies against individuals).

A prisoner may not maintain a Bivens action against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), prison officials in their supervisory capacities, or individual corrections employees in their official capacities. Solliday v. Fed. Officers, 413 F. App’x 206, 209 (11th Cir. 2011). See also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,

485 (1994) (declining to expand the category of Bivens defendants to include federal agencies, in part because “the purpose of Bivens is to deter the officer” (emphasis in original)). Plaintiff seeks to proceed against the Warden of Coleman Camp and the Director of the BOP simply because of the supervisory positions they hold. Such a theory of liability is not cognizable under Bivens. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks solely injunctive relief, not damages. Regardless, a district court may not dictate the location of an inmate’s confinement. The BOP has exclusive jurisdiction to decide where to house prisoners, including whether to place them in home confinement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.”);⁴ United States v. Calderon, 801 F. App’x 730, 731-32 (11th Cir. 2020) (holding a district court lacks jurisdiction to grant a request for home confinement under the Second Chance Act). See also McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.”); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F. 2d 923, 936 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[I]nmates usually possess no constitutional right to be housed at one prison over another.”). Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that injunctive relief is warranted, this action is due to be dismissed. If Plaintiff seeks to pursue a claim based on the alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement at

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (Docs. 1 &²) is DENIED.

2. This case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions as moot, and close the file. 4. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form. If Plaintiff chooses to refile her claims, she should not place this case number on the form. The Clerk will assign a separate case number if Plaintiff elects to refile her claims. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 138th day of January 2021.

4 ¢ De af J. DAVIS United States District Judge

Jax-6 C: Ana Gabriela Mursoli-Caballero