Celli v. Weingarten, Civil Action No. 2021-3359

Background

Plaintiff Lucio Celli, a New York public school teacher proceeding pro se, was convicted in EDNY for transmitting threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c); he appealed and remains on supervised release.
Celli previously filed multiple civil suits in EDNY and SDNY challenging DOE actions and his criminal proceedings; a SDNY judge dismissed a related suit for improper use of § 1983 and lack of jurisdiction over state-law claims.
While that SDNY matter was pending, Celli filed this action in the D.D.C. naming over 20 defendants (federal judges, government officials including President Biden and Senator Schumer, union leaders, and DOE actors), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and limits on evidence in his § 3020-a DOE tenure hearing.
The amended complaint asserted constitutional violations (First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments) and referenced possible Bivens-type claims but sought no damages, only injunctive/declaratory relief.
The Court found the pleading meandering, determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal-declaratory theory and that the federal constitutional claims impermissibly collaterally attacked Celli’s conviction; it also found no diversity for state-law claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice and denied as moot Celli’s request for U.S. Marshals service given the dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act or Rule 57 supplies federal-question jurisdiction	Celli invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act and Rule 57 to bring federal claims	Those provisions do not create an independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction	Court: DJA and Rule 57 do not confer jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to establish § 1331 jurisdiction
Whether Celli can obtain injunctive/declaratory relief in D.D.C. to challenge his EDNY criminal conviction	Celli sought injunctive/declaratory relief alleging constitutional violations in his criminal case	Defendants (and court): collateral attack on a conviction must proceed by direct appeal or § 2255 in sentencing court; civil suit in another district is improper	Court: Federal claims dismissed—Preiser/Heck bar collateral attacks; relief must be sought by appeal or § 2255
Whether Bivens or an implied constitutional remedy supports Celli’s claims for relief	Celli referenced Bivens but disclaimed monetary damages and sought injunctive relief	Bivens is a damages remedy against federal officers; injunctive relief can be pursued under other doctrines but not to collaterally attack a conviction	Court: Bivens inapplicable (no damages); injunctive relief doctrines exist but cannot be used here to overturn conviction in this forum
Whether the Court has jurisdiction over Celli’s state-law § 3020-a tenure claims	Celli sought limits on evidence and procedural relief in his DOE tenure hearing, implying state-law causes of action	Defendants: Diversity jurisdiction lacking because Celli and several defendants are New York citizens; supplemental jurisdiction improper after dismissal of federal claims	Court: Dismissed state-law claims for lack of complete diversity, refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims

Key Cases Cited

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (civil actions are not appropriate vehicles to challenge the validity of a criminal conviction or confinement)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (bar on civil tort actions seeking relief that would imply the invalidity of a conviction)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (court may infer a direct cause of action for injunctive relief under constitutional provisions)
Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 9 F.4th 935 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction)
Rollins v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (court may sua sponte dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when plaintiff cannot possibly prevail)
Hubbard v. U.S. EPA Administrator, 809 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (federal courts have inherent power to enjoin unconstitutional government acts)