Beyer v. Rardin

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota May 9, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Brandon Beyer,                     Case No. 23-CV-03770 (JMB/DJF)        

               Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                        

Jared Rardin, H. Hanson, Nancy Jordan,                                   
and E. Meyer,                                                            

              Defendants.                                                

    This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brandon Beyer’s Objection (Doc. No. 
27) to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. 
Foster, dated March 7, 2024.  (Doc. No. 24.)  The R&R recommends denying Beyer’s self-
styled Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (Motion for 
Injunctive Relief) (Doc. No. 3) on procedural grounds.  (See Doc. No. 24.)  For the reasons 
set forth below, the Court overrules Beyer’s objection and adopts the R&R. 
    Beyer  is  a  federal  prisoner  currently  incarcerated  at  FMC  Rochester.    In  his 
Complaint, Beyer brings claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

 against several Defendants in their 
official capacities as administrators and officials at FMC Rochester.  (See Doc. No. 1.)  
Beyer also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP application) and a Motion 
for Injunctive Relief on Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) on the same 
day  he  filed  his  Complaint.    (Doc.  Nos.  1–3.)    In  the  R&R,  the  Magistrate  Judge 
recommended denying the Motion for Injunctive Relief on grounds that Beyer failed to 
notify Defendants of the Motion for Injunctive Relief as required under Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) and (b)(1).1  (See Doc. No. 24.)                 

    Beyer objects to the R&R, arguing that he need not comply with Rule 65 because 
he has shown he will suffer imminent and irreparable harm.  (See Doc. No. 27.)  He also 
argues that he satisfied the notice requirement.2  (Id.)  The Court reviews the challenged 
portions of an R&R under a de novo standard of review.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C); Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3); see also Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 
(2007) (observing that courts liberally construe a self-represented litigant’s objections). 

    Having conducted a de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 
conclusion that Beyer has not satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 65(a)(1) and (b)(1).  
Beyer’s efforts to notify the Defendants of the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. Nos. 3, 
6-1, 7) did not provide actual notice to Defendants.  His Motion for Injunctive Relief is 
barred for lack of proper service.                                        



1 On the same day the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R, she also issued an order that 
granted Beyer’s IFP application and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the 
Summons and Complaint on Defendants.  (Doc. No. 23 at 1.)                 

2 Conversely, portions of Beyer’s response could be construed as a concession that he failed 
to satisfy the notice requirements.  Beyer seemingly acknowledges as much but asserts that 
his failure to do so resulted from a belief that the Court would effectuate service of the 
Motion for Injunctive Relief on his behalf.  The Court observes that service of a summons 
and complaint may be made by a United States marshal at the direction of a court “if the 
plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); see also

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(d).  Therefore, Beyer’s apparent reliance on officers of the court to also 
serve the Motion for Injunctive Relief on Defendants is misplaced.  Beyer’s electronic 
filing of the Motion for Injunctive Relief did not constitute service on Defendants because, 
as noted in the R&R, Defendants had not appeared in the action and had not yet been served 
the summons or complaint.  (Doc. No. 24 at 2 n.2.)                        
    In addition to these procedural notice grounds, the Court also denies the Motion for 
Injunctive Relief because injunctive relief is barred under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 

Agents  of Federal Bureau  of  Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388

  (1971).3   See,  e.g., Fiorito v. 
Drummy, No. 22-CV-0923, -0925, -0927 (PJS/TNL),

2023 WL 4052639

, at *2 (D. Minn. 
June 16, 2023) (noting that “a litigant cannot seek injunctive relief under Bivens”); see also 
Hill v. Holinka, No. 06-CV-4720 (PJS/JJG),

2008 WL 549928

, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 
2008)  (observing  that  “a  Bivens  claim  does  not  permit  relief  against  a  government 
employee in an official capacity,” and “[t]he only relief is for damages from the employee 

in an individual capacity”).  Thus, the relief Beyer seeks is barred.     
    Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
    1.   Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R (Doc. No. 27) is OVERRULED.    
    2.   The R&R (Doc. No. 24) is ADOPTED.                               
         a.  Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. 


Dated: May 9, 2024                      /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                       Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                       United States District Court      


3  Beyer  identifies  section  1983  as  the  legal  basis  for  his  underlying  claims  against 
Defendants.  However, because Beyer is a federal prisoner confined in a federal institution 
and Defendants are federal employees, the action is properly brought, and is construed as 
being brought, pursuant to Bivens rather than under section 1983.  E.g., Jones v. Fedo, No. 
20-CV-2168  (WMW/HB),

2021 WL 7287670

,  at  *2  n.4  (D.  Minn.  Dec.  31,  2021) 
(quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted,

2022 WL 673261

 (D. Minn. 
Mar. 7, 2022); see also Erickson,

551 U.S. at 94

 (advising that pleadings of self-represented 
litigants are entitled to liberal construction).