Perkins v. Rardin
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:23-cv-02487
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Perkins v. Rardin, Judge Magnuson denied Perkins’s habeas petition and dismissed the matter because a different statutory procedure was required.
Victor Bernard Perkins’s challenge to his continued civil confinement was denied in this case; the court stated that he could pursue the challenge through counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), but not through habeas corpus in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Perkins v. Rardin, Victor Bernard Perkins challenged his continued civil confinement, which had initially been ordered by a federal court in North Carolina. A magistrate judge recommended denying his petition and dismissing the matter. Perkins objected and also asked the court to order the respondent to explain why no response had been filed.
The court denied that request because it had not ordered the respondent to respond before screening the petition. It also ruled that a person challenging continued civil confinement must use the procedure in 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), rather than a habeas petition. The court declined to transfer the case to North Carolina and adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the matter.
Judge Magnuson entered the order on October 12, 2023. The court stated that Perkins could raise his challenges through counsel in a proceeding under § 4247(h), but could not pursue them through habeas in the District of Minnesota.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. Rardin · No. 0:23-cv-02487
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
The matter came before the court on Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko’s Report and Recommendation dated September 27, 2023. The recommendation advised denying Victor Bernard Perkins’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the matter. Perkins filed an objection and a motion for a procedural order to show cause.
Perkins’s petition challenged his continued civil confinement, which had initially been ordered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He argued that the statutory scheme did not allow him to challenge the legality or duration of his commitment. He also pointed to an earlier occasion when a judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina had allowed him to challenge his commitment through habeas corpus.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied Perkins’s motion for an order to show cause. Perkins argued that relief should be granted because the respondent had not responded to the petition. The court explained that it had not ordered a response because it first screened the petition to determine whether one was required. Because the petition was to be denied and the matter dismissed, the court concluded that no response was necessary.
The court held that habeas corpus was not available for Perkins’s challenge. It relied on Eighth Circuit precedent stating that a civil detainee challenging the length, constitutionality, or continuation procedures of civil detention must use 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), rather than habeas corpus. The court therefore agreed with the recommendation that the petition be denied.
The court also addressed transfer. Although the cited precedent stated that petitions like Perkins’s would normally be transferred to the district that ordered the confinement, the court concluded that transfer was not warranted because the Eastern District of North Carolina had decided not to accept further filings from Perkins without a lawyer. The court stated that Perkins could raise his challenges through counsel in a proceeding under § 4247(h), but could not pursue habeas corpus in the District of Minnesota.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the matter. It also denied Perkins’s motion for a procedural order to show cause. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.