Ricketts v. Maggard
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-00276
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Ricketts v. Maggard: Judge Wright granted dismissal of Ricketts’s Bivens complaint, with different dismissal terms for different claims.
David E. Ricketts’s claims were dismissed: the claims identified as being against B. Birkholz were dismissed with prejudice, while his remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. The defendants received dismissal of the complaint, and Ricketts’s request for appointed counsel was denied as moot.
What happened
In David E. Ricketts v. Officer Maggard, B. Birkolz, and Jessica Feda, Ricketts challenged the defendants’ conduct under a federal-court claim based on Bivens. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Ricketts objected, mainly arguing that Jessica Feda should remain liable because she allegedly caused serious harm to his physical health. The court noted that Feda worked for the United States Public Health Service and that federal law does not allow a Bivens claim against her for harms arising from her job.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Ricketts’s objections and adopted the recommendation after finding no clear error. The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims against B. Birkholz with prejudice, dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice, and denied Ricketts’s request for appointed counsel as moot.
The detailed version
- Ricketts v. Maggard · No. 0:19-cv-00276
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
David E. Ricketts brought claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended granting that motion for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Ricketts filed objections, but the district court found that he did not specifically challenge the report and recommendation’s factual findings or legal analysis. His main objection concerned Jessica Feda, whom he argued should be liable because she was directly responsible for causing irreparable harm to his physical health. The opinion states that Feda was an employee of the United States Public Health Service working at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, where Ricketts was housed. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Hui v. Castaneda, a Public Health Service employee is not personally subject to a Bivens action for harms arising from performing that job. The court therefore held that Ricketts could not maintain a Bivens claim against Feda even if he could prove that she caused the alleged harm.
Review of the Recommendation
Because Ricketts did not make specific objections, Judge Wright reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of each issue. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning or recommended resolution and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
The court ordered that:
- Ricketts’s objections were overruled. - The report and recommendation was adopted. - The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. - The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to Ricketts’s claims against B. Birkholz and dismissed without prejudice as to his remaining claims. - Ricketts’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied as moot.
The opinion directs that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.