Beyer v. Rardin
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-03770
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Beyer v. Rardin, Judge Bryan denied Beyer’s request for emergency injunctive relief because he failed to give proper notice and sought relief unavailable under Bivens.
Brandon Beyer’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied; the order did not decide his underlying claims.
What happened
In Beyer v. Rardin, Brandon Beyer, a federal prisoner, asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against federal employees at FMC Rochester. The magistrate judge recommended denying the request because Beyer had not properly notified the defendants.
Beyer objected, arguing that imminent and irreparable harm excused the notice requirement and that he had provided notice. The court found that his efforts did not give the defendants actual notice. It also concluded that the requested injunction was unavailable because Beyer’s claims were treated as claims under Bivens, which does not allow this type of injunctive relief against federal employees in their official capacities.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Beyer’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied Beyer’s motion for injunctive relief. The order addressed the requested injunction and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Beyer v. Rardin · No. 0:23-cv-03770
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- May 9, 2024
Background
Brandon Beyer, a federal prisoner incarcerated at FMC Rochester, sued Jared Rardin, H. Hanson, Nancy Jordan, and E. Meyer. The complaint identified 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for the claims and alleged claims against the defendants in their official capacities as administrators and officials at FMC Rochester.
Beyer also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee and filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The magistrate judge granted the filing-fee application and directed the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint. The magistrate judge separately recommended denying the motion for injunctive relief because Beyer had not notified the defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) and (b)(1).
Objection and Analysis
Beyer objected to the recommendation. He argued that he did not need to comply with Rule 65’s notice requirement because he had shown that he would suffer imminent and irreparable harm. He also argued that he had satisfied the notice requirement.
The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It agreed that Beyer had not satisfied Rule 65(a)(1) and (b)(1). The court found that Beyer’s efforts to notify the defendants did not provide them with actual notice. His electronic filing did not constitute service because the defendants had not appeared and had not yet been served with the summons and complaint.
The court also denied the requested relief on an additional ground. Although Beyer identified § 1983 as the legal basis for his claims, the court explained that, because he was confined in a federal institution and the defendants were federal employees, the action was properly treated as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court stated that injunctive relief is unavailable under Bivens and that a Bivens claim does not permit official-capacity relief against a government employee.
Disposition
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Beyer’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and denied Beyer’s motion for injunctive relief. The order resolved the motion for injunctive relief on notice and availability-of-relief grounds; it did not decide the merits of Beyer’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.