Mendez v. FMC Rochester

Background

Raphael Mendez was indicted by a Virgin Islands federal grand jury in 1990 for assault with a deadly weapon and other offenses. After he was found mentally incompetent to stand trial, he was later civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. He was eventually transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, where the opinion states that he remained in custody.

The case concerned Mendez’s objections to Magistrate Judge Docherty’s Report and Recommendation. The recommendation advised granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Claims and requested relief

The magistrate judge construed Mendez’s complaint as alleging that the Bureau of Prisons, as an agency, or individual defendants in their official capacities, violated his rights or injured him. The potential claims identified in the recommendation were:

- failure to prevent harm under 42 U.S.C. § 1986; - wrongful denial of a request to relocate under the Administrative Procedure Act; - failure to protect under 18 U.S.C. § 1983, as described in the opinion; and - a request for an order requiring government officials to act under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Mendez sought orders requiring defendants to take special protective measures, move him to an empty cell, install video monitoring in that cell, or transfer him to an area near Washington, D.C., so he could seek a congressional evidentiary hearing.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Mendez’s objections under the standards governing objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. It stated that vague or nonresponsive objections may be reviewed for clear error rather than through a fresh review of the disputed issues. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no error, whether clear or otherwise.

Mendez’s central objection appeared to be that the recommendation did not address authorities he cited in support of his assertion that he was falsely imprisoned. The court agreed with the recommendation’s treatment of those assertions as background to his other claims, rather than as an independent claim for relief. The court stated that Mendez’s indictment for a territorial offense did not establish that his federal commitment or detention was unlawful. It also noted that courts had repeatedly rejected similar arguments and that challenges to the validity of his civil commitment must be brought through a petition challenging detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The court also rejected Mendez’s argument that the magistrate judge should have treated the false-imprisonment assertions as an independent basis for relief. It noted that the complaint discussed wrongful imprisonment mainly in its first two paragraphs and otherwise focused on conduct by defendants and others. The court concluded that the magistrate judge’s construction of the complaint was not erroneous.

The court denied Mendez’s additional requests. It denied his request that Judge Docherty be removed or disqualified, finding no evidence of partiality. It denied his request for damages because no damages claim had been presented to the magistrate judge. It also denied his request for an evidentiary hearing by video conference, explaining that a new hearing ordinarily is not held when a district judge rules on objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Disposition

The court overruled Mendez’s objections, accepted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.