Mendez v. Kallis

Background

Raphael Mendez filed documents concerning COVID-19 prevention procedures at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester. He sought changes to or reversal of those procedures and filed a motion titled “Motion for Restrain Order on Subject of Abusive Federal Medical Center Condition 28 USC 2241.”

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on April 20, 2020. She recommended treating Mendez’s filings as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure used to challenge certain forms of custody, and dismissing them without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. She also recommended denying the motion as moot. Mendez objected. His objections repeated his concerns about staff and COVID-19 procedures and added assertions about food, copying charges, and mail obstruction.

Analysis

The court found Mendez’s objections vague and unrelated in significant respects to the recommendation. It nevertheless read his filings liberally and independently reviewed the recommendation.

The court agreed that the filings should be treated as a § 2241 petition. It explained that habeas relief is generally used to challenge a conviction or the length of detention, such as the loss of good-time credits. Mendez did not challenge his conviction or seek an earlier release. Instead, his filings concerned the conditions of his confinement. The court therefore held that habeas relief was not the proper vehicle for his claims and that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.

The court also considered, but declined to construe, the filings as a constitutional claim for damages against federal officials under the doctrine commonly called a Bivens claim. The court noted that the filings did not identify any individual Federal Medical Center staff member, did not explain how the challenged procedures violated Mendez’s constitutional rights, and sought only injunctive relief—an order requiring officials to do or stop doing something—rather than damages. The court accepted the recommendation not to treat the filings as a Bivens claim.

Disposition

The court ordered four things: (1) Mendez’s objections were overruled; (2) the Report and Recommendation was accepted; (3) Mendez’s filings, construed as a habeas petition, were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and (4) his motion concerning Federal Medical Center conditions was denied as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered.