Perales v. Daniels

Background

Richard A. Perales filed a civil complaint against Jack Daniels, identified as Chief Psychiatrist, Dionne Hart, identified as Staff Psychiatrist, and others. The opinion states that Perales was in the custody of the United States Attorney General at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester under an order for civil commitment. He alleged that the defendants were forcing him to take “anti-psycho-tropic” drugs, that the drugs caused dangerous side effects, and that the forced medication violated his constitutional rights. He requested money damages and applied to proceed without paying filing fees.

Screening and Claims

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires screening of a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying fees. Although the court concluded that Perales financially qualified for that status, it explained that the case still had to be dismissed if the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court applied the rule that factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions and allegations that do not make relief plausible are insufficient. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally but still must allege enough facts to support a claim.

Perales cited 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1985. The court explained that § 1331 gives federal district courts authority to hear federal-law claims but does not itself create a substantive claim for relief. The court also noted that there is no 18 U.S.C. § 1985 and broadly considered whether Perales had stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. It concluded that none of the types of conspiracies covered by that statute applied to the allegations. The court further found that Perales alleged no facts showing the class-based discriminatory motive required for the equal-protection type of conspiracy claim.

Constitutional Damages Claim

Because Perales sought money damages from federal employees for alleged constitutional violations, the court treated the allegations as a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a court-created action seeking damages from a federal official for certain constitutional violations.

The court explained that the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens claims in only three settings: certain Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, a Fifth Amendment workplace gender-discrimination claim, and an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim. Perales’s allegation that he was forcibly medicated implicated a Fifth Amendment liberty interest, but the court found that this was a new context beyond the Supreme Court’s recognized Bivens claims.

The court then considered whether special factors counseled against extending Bivens. It relied on its earlier analysis in a different case involving a civil detainee who alleged that forced medication violated the Fifth Amendment. That earlier decision found that procedures governing involuntary treatment and an administrative process provided reasons not to impose money-damages liability on federal medical officials. The court also noted that the Administrative Procedure Act remained an available avenue for challenging the officials’ actions in that earlier case. Applying that reasoning here, the court found no basis to distinguish Perales’s allegations and concluded that Bivens did not extend to his money-damages claims against the officials.

Disposition

The court ordered that Perales’s civil complaint be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It separately ordered that his application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied as moot. The opinion’s order does not state any additional disposition beyond those two rulings.