Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perkins v. Holder

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 12, 2014

VICTOR B. PERKINS, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, USAG, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FRANKLIN L. NOEL, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket No. 1.)[1] The matter has been referred to this Court for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts.[2]

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a civilly committed inmate at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, ("FMC-Rochester"). Petitioner has appeared before this Court in several previous actions, including two prior § 2241 habeas corpus cases that were filed in 2011: Perkins v. Jett, No. 11-326 (PAM/FLN) and Perkins v. Jett, 11-1730 (PAM/FLN), (hereafter referred to collectively as "the 2011 habeas cases").[3]

The 2011 habeas cases were dismissed based on a single Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that addressed both cases together. In that R&R, the Court reported that Petitioner was civilly committed in 1992 in the Eastern District of North Carolina. He was committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, as a person due for release but suffering from a mental disease or defect. (See United States v. Perkins, 5:92-hc-654-BR, Doc. No. 1 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 9, 2010).) Since 1992, Petitioner has been in and out of custody, and he has filed at least seven § 2255 motions (in the Eastern District of North Carolina), challenging his civil commitment on both statutory and constitutional grounds.

The R&R in the 2011 habeas cases also reported that Petitioner's ongoing civil commitment had been challenged in a hearing held in the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 3, 2011. Petitioner appeared at the hearing by video teleconference and was represented by counsel. Following that hearing, the presiding District Court Judge found that Petitioner still met the statutory criteria for commitment, and Petitioner was therefore ordered to remain in custody. As noted above, Petitioner is currently being detained at FMC-Rochester.

Petitioner's 2011 habeas cases presented seven identifiable grounds for relief, which the Court described as follows:

"Perkins claims that 18 U.S.C. § 4246 is unconstitutional because it: (1) gives undue sentencing authority' to doctors, (2) provides no sentencing guidelines for someone that has violated the terms of their conditional release, (3) violates his First Amendment rights to liberty;' (4) denies Perkins equal protection of the laws because it allowed a heroin addict known to Perkins to be treated differently than Perkins (who was caught using marijuana while on conditional release).... In addition, Perkins claims that: (5) his due process rights were violated when his conditional release was revoked without a hearing under 18 U.S.C. 4246(f), (6) his doctors have misinterpreted 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d), and (7) his probation officer overstepped his authority and violated 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f) by reporting Perkins's violation of the conditions of his release."[4]

The Court reviewed all of the claims presented in both of the 2011 habeas cases, and recommended that both cases should be dismissed. Petitioner filed objections to that recommendation, but the presiding District Court Judge overruled those objections, adopted the R&R, and ordered that both of the 2011 habeas cases be dismissed with prejudice. See Perkins v. Jett, Civil No. 11-326 (PAM/FLN), Order of District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson, dated November 29, 2011, [Docket No.35].) Petitioner did not appeal that ruling.

Petitioner's current § 224habeas corpus petition challenges his civil commitment once again. Petitioner presently claims that -

(1) his conditional release was "wrongfully revoked" in May 2010;

(2) his First Amendment rights were violated, because he was denied an unconditional release from confinement after being "wrongfully diagnosed... as suffering from grandiose religious based delusions."

(3) he is "being held unconstitutionally indefinitely due to misinterpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. 4246(d);" and

(4) he was "wrongfully committed due to the circumstances that there are no guidelines such as parole and probation guidelines to direct the term of imprisonment to be serve[d] by the individuals whom [sic] violate the conditions of their conditional release." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.