Perkins v. Daniels

Background

Victor B. Perkins, who the opinion identifies as a federal civil detainee, filed a complaint against Jack Daniels, identified as a chief psychiatrist, and Dionne Hart, identified as a staff psychiatrist. Perkins alleged that government officials forced him to take psychotropic medications and ignored his reports of harmful side effects. He sought $10 million in damages and applied to proceed without paying filing fees or costs.

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended denying the fee application and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim—a conclusion that the pleaded facts did not establish a legally available claim for relief. Perkins objected, so Judge Menendez reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently and gave his objections a liberal reading because he represented himself.

Reasons for the Decision

The court identified two problems with the complaint. First, it found that Perkins had already brought substantially identical claims against Daniels and Hart in a prior related proceeding. The earlier case involved the same alleged forced medication, the same alleged side effects, and the same request for $10 million in damages. The court said those claims had been dismissed with prejudice because no remedy was available under Bivens, the judge-made framework sometimes used to seek damages for constitutional violations by federal officials.

The court applied res judicata, also called claim preclusion. This doctrine prevents a party from relitigating a claim when a court with authority entered a final judgment on the merits involving the same parties and the same cause of action. Judge Menendez found that all three requirements were met: the prior judgment was entered by a court with jurisdiction, it was final and entered with prejudice, and the parties and claims were the same.

Second, the court agreed that, even apart from claim preclusion, the complaint failed for the same substantive reasons discussed in the prior litigation: Bivens did not provide a damages remedy for the claims Perkins presented. The court also agreed that amendment would be futile and that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.

Ruling

Judge Menendez overruled Perkins’s objections, accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the application to proceed without paying fees, and dismissed the matter with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order directed that judgment be entered.