Perkins v. Daniels

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 13, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Victor B. Perkins, Case No. 24-CV-1094 (JMB/DTS)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Dr. Jack Daniels, Chief Psychiatrist, and
Dr. Dionne Hart, Staff Psychiatrist,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Victor B. Perkins’s Objection (Doc. No.
15) to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David
T. Schultz dated April 12, 2024. (Doc. No. 14.) The R&R recommends that Perkins’s
Complaint (Doc. No. 6) be dismissed without prejudice, Perkins’s Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) be denied as moot, and that
several motions (Doc. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10) also be denied as moot. (See Doc. No. 14.) Perkins
has also filed a Motion to Expedite. (Doc. No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the
Court overrules Perkins’s objection, adopts the R&R, and denies as moot: the Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, the other motions, and the
Motion to Expedite. See (Doc. No. 16.)
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), and 
it reviews unchallenged findings for clear error, see Grinder v. Gammon,

73 F.3d 793, 795

 
(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).  Because Perkins is self-represented, his objection is entitled 
to liberal construction.  Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 (2007).  Perkins’s objection 
appears to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court decline to 
extend Bivens1 to Perkins’s claims.  (Doc. Nos. 14, 15.)  Perkins offers various legal 

citations to support his objection but does not identify any error of law or fact that warrants 
rejection of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.  (See generally Doc. No. 15.)  
    Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court cannot identify any justifiable basis to extend 
Bivens to Perkins’s claims.  See generally Victor B.P. v. Daniels, Case No. 19-CV-2663 
(SRN/ECW),

2021 WL 3476710

,  at  *10  (D.  Minn.  Apr.  12,  2021),  report  and 

recommendation adopted as modified sub nom.,

2021 WL 2981286

 (D. Minn. July 15, 
2021) (listing the limited circumstances in which a Bivens action is available and declining 
to extend Bivens to claims similar to those raised by Perkins); see also Hernandez v. Mesa,

589 U.S. 93, 93

  (2020)  (discouraging  expansion  of  Bivens as  “a  disfavored  judicial 
activity”); Ahmed v. Weyker,

984 F.3d 564, 567

 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the 

Supreme Court has only recognized a cause of action under Bivens in three circumstances).  
Further, the Court has reviewed the unobjected-to aspects of the R&R and discerns no 
error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.           
    Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT 
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                   

    1.   Plaintiff Victor B. Perkins’s objection to the R&R (Doc. No. 15) is 
         OVERRULED.                                                      

1 Under Bivens, the “victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to 
recover damages against [that] official in federal court despite the absence of any statute 
conferring such a right.” Carlson v. Green,

446 U.S. 14, 18

 (1980) (discussing Bivens v. 
Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents,

403 U.S. 388

 (1971)).                  
    2.   The R&R (Doc. No. 14) is ADOPTED.                               

         a.  Perkins’s  Complaint  (Doc.  No.  6)  is  DISMISSED  WITHOUT 
           PREJUDICE pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B)(ii);          

         b.  Perkins’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 
           Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as MOOT; and             

         c.  Perkins’s pending motions—the Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 
           7), the Motion for a Procedural Show Cause Order (Doc. No. 8), the 
           second Motion for a Procedural Show Cause Order (Doc. No. 9), the 
           Motion for a Procedural Order as an Interlocutory Judgment (Doc. No. 
           10), and the Motion to Expedite (Doc. No. 16)—are DENIED as MOOT. 

    LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

Dated: June 13, 2024                    /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                       Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                       United States District Court