Peoples v. Drug Enforcement Agency

Filing 54

ORDER accepting Report and Recommendations for 47 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court overrules plaintiffs objections and ac-cepts the reports findings and recommendations except as to the prejudicial effect of the sovereign-immunity dismissal. Signed by District Judge J. Campbell Barker on 1/6/2025. (gsm)

No. 6:24-cv-00019
Christopher Peoples,
Plaintiff,
v.
Drug Enforcement Agency et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Peoples, an inmate of the Cherokee
County Jail, filed this civil rights lawsuit pro se and in forma pauperis. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3.
On October 9, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and
that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 47. Plaintiff filed
timely written objections. Doc. 51.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge explained
that plaintiff has no right to placement in the federal witness protection program or to damages for the failure to place him in the
program, and that plaintiff’s claims for money damages against
any federal agency or its employees in their official capacity are
barred by sovereign immunity. Doc. 47 at 6–12.
Plaintiff’s objections to the report do not refute those findings. He emphasizes the assistance he provided to the government
in a criminal investigation, Doc. 51 at 2–3, but that assistance is
not disputed for the purpose of defendants’ motion. The magistrate judge expressly based his findings “on the assumption that
Plaintiff’s allegations are true.” Doc. 47 at 12.

-1-

Plaintiff disagrees with the report’s depiction of the chronology of events. Doc. 51 at 3–4. But that dispute is immaterial to the
findings that warrant granting defendants’ motion: that the attorney general has exclusive authority to determine whether an individual receives federal protection, that sovereign immunity bars
money-damages claims against the government and its officials in
their official capacity, and that plaintiff failed to state a Bivens
claim.
Plaintiff also alleges failures by the Cherokee County sheriff’s
department in addressing threats to his safety. Doc. 51 at 4–6. But
neither Cherokee County nor any of its officials are parties to this
suit. And, as the magistrate judge explained, plaintiff’s ability to
bring suit against his jailors pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for any
alleged indifference to his safety is reason not to extend the limited remedy created in Bivens to this case. Doc. 47 at 11.
Finally, plaintiff seeks “a grace period” to allow him time to
cure the “fatal flaw” in his case. Doc. 51 at 6. But plaintiff has not
moved to amend his complaint or submitted a proposed amendment. And even if he did so, the court would deny leave to amend
because there is nothing plaintiff can allege that would overcome
sovereign immunity or the conclusion, as a matter of law, that the
facts of his case do not state a claim for which relief can be
granted. See Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 872–73
(5th Cir. 2000) (“It is within the district court’s discretion to
deny a motion to amend if it is futile.”).
The court disagrees, however, with the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss all of the claims with prejudice. Sovereign-immunity dismissals are dismissals for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and must be without prejudice. Nguyen v. United
States Postal Service, No. 23-30547, 2024 WL 655578, at *2 (5th
Cir. Feb. 16, 2024).
Accordingly, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommendations except as to the
prejudicial effect of the sovereign-immunity dismissal. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is granted. The claims for
-2-

injunctive and declaratory relief and the Bivens claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2). The claims for money damages against
the federal government and its agents in their official capacity are
dismissed without prejudice. Any pending motions are denied as
moot.
So ordered by the court on January 6, 2025.

J. C AM PB EL L B A RK ER
United States District Judge

-3-