Perkins v. Jett et al
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs 2 is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff's "Motion for Summary Judgment&quo t; 7 , and "Motion for the Magistrate to Recusal Himself due to Lack of Consent from the Parties" 9 are DENIED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 04/24/2017. (LLM) CC: Perkins. (kt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Victor B. Perkins,
Civil No. 17-761 (PAM/FLN)
B.R. Jett, Fmr.Warden;
Mary Haugen, Unit Manager;
and U.S. Attorney General Office,
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Victor B. Perkins’s Application to
Proceed without Prepayment of Fees. (Docket No. 2.) The case was transferred from the
Eastern District of North Carolina. (Docket No. 5.) Perkins seeks IFP status to pursue a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for what he alleges is his unconstitutional continued civil
28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits an indigent person to commence a civil action such as this
“without prepayment of fees or security therefor.” The Court should not grant IFP status
and must instead dismiss a case commenced under § 1915 if it determines that the action
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Perkins has sought monetary relief for his allegedly unconstitutional civil
commitment many times before. 1 In fact, less than a year ago, this Court dismissed
For a list of Perkins’s previous filings, see Perkins v. Jett, Civ. No. 16-1835 (D. Minn.
Perkins’s claims for monetary relief for what he alleged was his unconstitutional civil
commitment. See Perkins v. Jett, Civ. No. 16-1835 (D. Minn. Jun 16, 2016) (affirmed by
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at Docket No. 17). The Court informed Perkins that his
claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that any similar future
actions would be dismissed. Perkins, Civ. No. 16-1835 (D. Minn. June 16, 2016) (Docket
No. 5). The Court warned: “Absent a court order declaring his commitment illegal,
should Perkins bring future actions seeking money damages arising out of the fact of his
commitment, the Court will summarily dismiss the case without further discussion.” Id.
at 3. Perkins once again asks the Court to award him $10 million for his “wrongful civil
commitment” but he does not allege that he has obtained a court order declaring his
commitment illegal. (Docket No. 1-1.) Consistent with its prior warning, the Court will
summarily dismiss this matter.
Because of the summary dismissal, Perkins’s pending “Motion for Summary
Judgement” (Docket No. 7) and “Motion for the Magistrate to Recusal Himself due to Lack
of Consent from the Parties” (Docket No. 9) are denied without further discussion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice;
Plaintiff=s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Docket No. 2) is DENIED; and
June 16, 2016), Docket No. 5 at n. 1.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Judgement” (Docket No. 7) and “Motion
for the Magistrate to Recusal Himself due to Lack of Consent from the
Parties” (Docket No. 9) are DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 24, 2017
s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?