United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Raphael Mendez, pro se.
M. Secord, Assistant United States Attorney, United States
Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on Plaintiff Raphael Mendez's
(“Mendez”) Objection [Docket No. 82] to
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's January 23, 2018
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 81]
(“R&R”). In the R&R, Judge Thorson
recommends granting Defendant Officer Joseph Peterson's
(“Officer Peterson”) Motion to Dismiss or for
Summary Judgment [Docket No. 66]. For the reasons set forth
below, Mendez's Objection is overruled, the R&R is
adopted, and Officer Peterson's Motion to Dismiss or for
Summary Judgment is granted.
is currently incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in
Rochester, Minnesota (“FMC Rochester”). See
Mendez v. Dole, Civ. No. 16-2644, 2017 WL 3730995, at *1
(D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2017). Mendez was indicted in the U.S.
Virgin Islands in 1990 for assault, possession of an
unlicensed firearm during the commission of a violent crime,
and possession of a firearm by a felon. See Mendez v.
Bureau of Prisons, No. 08-4971, 2009 WL 3856925, at *1
(D. Minn. Nov. 17, 2009). After he was determined to be
incompetent to stand trial, Mendez was transferred to FMC
Butner, North Carolina for a period of restoration under 18
U.S.C. § 4246. Id. Mendez was unable to be
restored to competency, and in 1991 he was civilly committed
in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Id.
August 5, 2016, Mendez filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit
against known and unknown individuals employed at FMC
Rochester stemming from his July 25, 2016 placement in the
Segregated Housing Unit (“SHU”). See
Compl. [Docket No. 1]; Am. Compl. [Docket No. 6]. Mendez
seeks monetary compensation and a transfer to FMC Butner.
January 31, 2017, all defendants except Officer Peterson
filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Docket No.
23]. At that time, Officer Peterson had not been served
because Mendez did not include Officer Peterson's full
name in the Complaint [Docket No. 1] or Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 6]. On August 29, 2017, the Motion to Dismiss or
for Summary Judgment as to all other defendants was granted.
See Mem. Op. Order [Docket No. 50].
August 11, 2017, Officer Peterson was properly served, and
this Motion to Dismiss was filed on October 6, 2017.
The Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Discipline Program
comprehensive analysis of the Bureau of Prisons'
(“BOP”) Inmate Discipline Program is set forth in
the R&R and is incorporated by reference. See
R&R 2-4. Put simply, the BOP may impose sanctions on
inmates who commit “prohibited acts.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 541.1. When BOP staff witness or reasonably believe an
inmate has committed a prohibited act, an incident report is
created and a BOP staff member investigates the incident.
Id. §§ 541.5(a), (b). After the
investigation is complete, a Unit Discipline Committee
(“UDC”) reviews the incident report, and then
determines whether the inmate did or did not commit the
prohibited act. Id. § 541.7(a). The UDC may
refer the matter to the Discipline Hearing Officer
(“DHO”) for further review, which may include a
hearing and the opportunity to present evidence and call
witnesses. Id. §§ 541.7, (a), (g); §
the disciplinary process, if it appears that the inmate is
mentally ill, the inmate will be examined to determine
whether the inmate is responsible for his or her conduct.
Id. § 541.6. Typically, there is no hearing if
the inmate is found not competent or not responsible for
their conduct. Stolarzyk Decl. [Docket No. 26] ¶ 6.
Mendez Sends ...