United States of America v. Mahoney

Filing 239

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying 237 Motion for declaratory judgment and motion to remove the detainer against the respondent because it was not done by a judicial court order. The Clerk sent a copy of the Order by first class mail on 9/27/2017 to Mr. Mahoney at FMC Devens. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN MAHONEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. Action No. 13-11530-PBS

ORDER
September 26, 2017
SARIS, C.D.J.
On July 28, 2017, Brian Mahoney (“Mr. Mahoney”) filed in
this closed civil commitment case, and without assistance of
counsel, a motion that (1) challenges the constitutionality of a
Detainer Action Letter issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) on July 23, 2017, and (2) claims that the BOP is without
authority to use a state conviction from the 1980s as a basis
for his public safety factor classification and for sex offender
registry notification upon his release.

Mr. Mahoney further

complains that he was threatened by staff member B. Padula.
Attached to his motion is a copy of the Detainer Action Letter.
On September 7, 2017, the Government filed an opposition
stating that (1) the Court already ruled that Mr. Mahoney cannot
represent himself; (2) Mr. Mahoney’s motion is not related to
the civil commitment proceedings; and (3) the BOP Detainer
Action Letter was issued in response to a detainer that was
lodged by the Commonwealth.

As correctly noted by the Government, the issues raised in
Mr. Mahoney’s motion are wholly unrelated to the issue in the
instant action.

The undersigned views the issues raised by Mr.

Mahoney as potentially falling under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which
established a direct cause of action against federal officials
in their individual capacities for violations of the federal
constitution or the laws of the United States.

In order to

succeed on a Bivens claim, one must show the defendant's direct
involvement in the alleged deprivation of rights — “respondeat
superior is not a viable theory of Bivens liability.” Ruiz
Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.324, 28 (1st Cir. 2000).
Rather than construe Mr. Mahoney’s motion as a complaint,
the undersigned will deny the motion.

If Mr. Mahoney wishes to

pursue the claims raised in his motion, he is free to initiate a
new civil action.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Mahoney’s motion for declaratory judgment
and motion to remove the detainer against the respondent because
it was not done by a judicial court order (Docket No. 237) is
DENIED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2