Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02715/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02715-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2715 LKK DAD P

vs.

TERMINI BROS BAKERY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner in South Carolina, has named Termini Bros Bakery,

www.termini.com, and Anthony Travia, Sr. as defendants in this action. Plaintiff alleges that

Termini Bros Bakery does not remove trans fat from their ingredients, sends out cakes and pies 

containing “oxycontin,” and employs illegal immigrants. (Compl. at 1.) He also claims that

Termini and Travia have threatened to throw pies in his face and to force feed plaintiff liquid

hydrogene and Alpo. Plaintiff seeks 25 million dollars in damages and a restraining order to stop

defendants from violating the trans fat ban.

Plaintiff fails to show that this is an appropriate venue for this action, see 28

U.S.C. § 1391 et. seq., or that his claim is cognizable, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 et. seq. Therefore,

plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and the court will recommend that it be dismissed. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 2:07-cv-02715-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 20, 2007.

DAD:4

rich2715.56

Case 2:07-cv-02715-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2