Perkins v. Daniels

Background

Victor B. Perkins, who represented himself, sued Dr. Jack Daniels, identified as Chief Psychiatrist, and Dr. Dionne Hart, identified as Staff Psychiatrist. United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing Perkins’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The recommendation also advised denying Perkins’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and several pending motions as moot, meaning no ruling on them was needed because of the recommended dismissal.

Objection and analysis

Perkins objected to the recommendation. The court understood the objection to challenge the recommendation not to extend Bivens to Perkins’s claims. Bivens is a court-recognized damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. Perkins cited various legal authorities but did not identify an error of law or fact requiring rejection of the recommendation.

The court agreed that it could not identify a justifiable basis to extend Bivens to Perkins’s claims. It also reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Perkins did not object and found no clear error. The court applied a more thorough review to the challenged portions and a clear-error review to the unchallenged portions.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Perkins’s objection and adopted the recommendation. The court dismissed Perkins’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It denied as moot Perkins’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. It also denied as moot Perkins’s Motion for Entry of Default, Motion for a Procedural Show Cause Order, second Motion for a Procedural Show Cause Order, Motion for a Procedural Order as an Interlocutory Judgment, and Motion to Expedite. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.