Cox v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 3 is DENIED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 5/9/2022.(CLG)
CASE 0:22-cv-00546-PJS-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SAMUEL I. COX,
Case No. 22‐CV‐0546 (PJS/JFD)
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, John/Jane Doe; SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, John
Doe/Jane Doe; SSA, John Doe/Jane Doe;
BARBARA HUNT, Chief, Congressional
and Public Affairs Branch; OFFICE OF
DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND
REVIEW, John Doe/Jane Doe; and
SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE,
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Samuel I. Cox’s objection to
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s March 24, 2022, Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). Judge Docherty recommends dismissing Cox’s complaint with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), denying Cox’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, and denying Cox’s motion for appointment of counsel. The Court has
conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on
that review, the Court overrules Cox’s objection and adopts Judge Docherty’s R&R.
CASE 0:22-cv-00546-PJS-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3
Only one matter merits comment. Judge Docherty suggests that Cox’s equal
protection challenge to § 402(x) of the Social Security Act is foreclosed by the Eighth
Circuit’s opinion in Jensen v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1985). But the specific
reasoning in Jensen on which Judge Docherty relied can be distinguished by the fact that
civil detainees in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (such as Cox) may be held liable
for the cost of their care during the program, see Minn. Stat. § 246B.07, while prisoners
receive “‘shelter, food, clothing and medical care . . . free of charge by the prison
officials,’” Jensen, 766 F.2d at 385 (quoting Washington v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
718 F.2d 608, 611 (3rd Cir. 1983)). Ultimately this difference does not matter, though,
because as Judge Docherty correctly concluded, Cox cannot maintain a § 1983 or Bivens
claim against the federal defendants. See Farah v. Weyker, 926 F.3d 492, 498 (8th Cir.
2019) (describing narrow availability of Bivens actions).1
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
the Court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objection [ECF No. 6] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF
No. 5]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
In his objection to Judge Docherty’s R&R, Cox requests permission “to amend
[his] complaint to address all issue’s IFP [sic].” ECF No. 6 at 3. The Court agrees with
Judge Docherty that any attempt to amend the complaint would be futile and denies
CASE 0:22-cv-00546-PJS-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3
Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 9, 2022
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District 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?