Perkins v. Daniels
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-02663
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Perkins v. Daniels, Judge Nelson granted defendants’ motion, dismissed Perkins’s Fifth Amendment claims with prejudice, and denied his other motions.
Victor B. Perkins’s Fifth Amendment individual-capacity claims against Dr. Jack Daniels and Dr. Dionne Hart were dismissed with prejudice; the court also denied Perkins’s motions to stay, for an interlocutory judgment, and for leave to amend.
What happened
Perkins v. Daniels involved Victor B. Perkins’s claims that Dr. Jack Daniels and Dr. Dionne Hart violated his constitutional rights by involuntarily medicating him for schizophrenia. Perkins sought damages, and the court had previously allowed only his Fifth Amendment due-process claims against the doctors in their individual capacities to continue.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Perkins’s motions to stay the medication and obtain an interlocutory judgment. Perkins objected, alleging bias, but the court found no support for that allegation. The court also agreed that the damages claims could not proceed under the legal framework Perkins relied on because that framework does not extend to these forced-medication due-process claims.
Judge Nelson overruled Perkins’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation with a modification. The court denied Perkins’s motions to stay and for an interlocutory judgment, denied permission to file his unauthorized second amended complaint, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, and dismissed Perkins’s Fifth Amendment individual-capacity claims with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. Daniels · No. 0:19-cv-02663
- Susan Nelson
- July 15, 2021
Background
Victor B. Perkins, who was committed to the Attorney General’s custody for hospitalization at the Federal Medical Center-Rochester under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, sued Dr. Jack Daniels and Dr. Dionne Hart. Federal Medical Center staff, including the defendants, concluded that involuntary medication was required to treat Perkins’s schizophrenia. Perkins asserted several constitutional claims and sought $10,000,000 in damages.
In a September 11, 2020 order, the court dismissed all claims except Perkins’s Fifth Amendment procedural- and substantive-due-process claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. Perkins later filed a second amended complaint without obtaining the defendants’ consent or the court’s permission. He also moved for an order staying his forced medication and filed a motion seeking an interlocutory judgment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objection
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright treated the defendants’ motion as a motion for summary judgment and recommended granting it. She also recommended denying Perkins’s motion to stay and motion for interlocutory judgment. The magistrate judge interpreted Perkins’s Fifth Amendment damages claims as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a damages claim against federal officials for certain constitutional violations. The recommendation concluded that controlling precedent did not allow extending that remedy to Perkins’s forced-medication due-process claims.
Perkins objected, generally asserting that his due-process rights had been violated. The court identified only one specific objection: Perkins’s assertion that the magistrate judge was biased against him. The court reviewed the proceedings and found no basis for the bias allegation.
Court’s Analysis
The court found no error in the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the record did not support a Bivens claim as a matter of law. It held that Bivens does not extend to the Fifth Amendment due-process claims for money damages alleged in this action. Although the magistrate judge had recommended dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice, the district court modified that recommendation and dismissed the claims with prejudice because they failed as a matter of law.
The court also considered the motions that Perkins had not specifically addressed in his objection. It agreed that the magistrate judge correctly recommended denying the motion to stay and the motion for interlocutory judgment. Finally, because Perkins filed the second amended complaint without the required consent or court permission, the court treated that filing as a motion for leave to amend and denied the motion because the proposed amendment would be futile.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Perkins’s objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation as modified. The court denied Perkins’s motion to issue a stay order and motion for an interlocutory judgment. It denied the motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment and dismissed Perkins’s Fifth Amendment individual-capacity claims with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.