Beyer v. Rardin et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 24 Report and Recommendation. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan on 5/9/2024. (LIA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Brandon Beyer,

Case No. 23-CV-03770 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
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 selfstyled 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.

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.)

1

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.)
2

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

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).
3

3