Perkins v. Trump, Sr.

Background

Victor B. Perkins, proceeding without a lawyer, was civilly committed at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the forced administration of psychotropic medication and alleging that facility staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He alleged serious medication side effects, including hypertension, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and two heart attacks.

Perkins also alleged that Donald J. Trump, Sr., Barack Obama, George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric H. Holder, and John Ashcroft—whom the petition identified as former presidents or former attorneys general—targeted him and conspired to murder him because of his religious beliefs and political aspirations. The petition also asserted civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objections

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice. He concluded that the petition challenged conditions of confinement and therefore was not a proper habeas action. He also concluded that any civil-rights claims were not viable because Perkins had not named proper respondents. Perkins objected to the recommendation, arguing that the court had not adequately considered his wrongful-imprisonment allegations and that Section 2241 could address his confinement conditions.

Habeas Analysis

The court explained that habeas relief generally may be used to challenge the validity of a conviction or the length of detention, but not the conditions of confinement. Although Perkins briefly asserted that his commitment and detention were wrongful, he did not identify a specific constitutional defect in his incarceration, particular legal errors by the courts that authorized his detention, or a request for release. His principal requested relief concerned forced medication. The court therefore held that a habeas petition could not provide the remedy he sought.

The court also noted that the petition did not name the proper habeas respondents. The proper respondent is the person who has custody of the petitioner or holds the petitioner in the allegedly unlawful custody.

Civil-Rights Claims

The court recognized that a person detained by the United States has a constitutional liberty interest in avoiding unwanted antipsychotic medication and a constitutional interest in receiving care that is not deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. The court said it could potentially construe Perkins’s allegations as a civil-rights action rather than a habeas case.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for constitutional violations by state officials. Similar claims against federal officials may sometimes proceed under the judge-made framework associated with Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Under either framework, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that each defendant personally took action that violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

The court found that Perkins alleged no facts plausibly suggesting that the former presidents or former attorneys general were involved in decisions about his health care or medication at the Federal Medical Center. The court therefore held that his claims were not viable even if treated as civil-rights claims.

Disposition

The court overruled Perkins’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied the habeas petition, denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court stated that dismissal without prejudice allowed Perkins to refile, but any new case would have to be properly pleaded against proper defendants. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Perkins had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.