Butts v. Martin

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 1:12-cv-00114
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION PAUL RICHARD BUTTS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12cv114 RICARDO MARTINEZ § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Paul Richard Butts, a federal prisoner formerly at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Texas, brought the above-styled lawsuit. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the action should be dismissed. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The Supreme Court has cautioned against extending Bivens to new contexts as in this case. See Hernandez v. Mesa (Hernandez II), U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 735, 744, 206 L.Ed.2d 29 (2020). “In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to say that extending Bivens to new contexts is a disfavored judicial activity.” Byrd v. Lamb, F.3d , 2021 WL 871199 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2021) (internal citations omitted) (declining to extend Bivens to excessive force or unlawful detention claims). As set forth in the Report, plaintiff’s claims do not arise in one of the three limited situations to which the Fifth Circuit has held Bivens generally applies, and Bivens should not be extended to his claims. See Oliva v. Nivar, 973 F.3d 438, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2020). The Supreme

Court has “not found an implied damages remedy under the Free Exercise Clause” and has “declined to extend Bivens to a claim sounding in the First Amendment.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Further, as set forth in the Report, special factors caution against extending Bivens to plaintiff’s claims. Recent decisions have confirmed this hesitation to extend Bivens to prisoner First Amendment claims. “The only relevant threshold - that a factor ‘counsels hesitation’ - is remarkably low.” Canada v. United States, 950 F.3d 299, 309 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Hernandez v. Mesa, 885

F.3d 811, 822 (2018)). “Congress paid close attention to inmate constitutional claims when it enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.” Callahan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 965 F.3d at 520, 524 (6th Cir. 2020). The failure of Congress to provide a standalone damages remedy against federal jailers in the Act “suggests a considered decision not to extend a damages remedy to First Amendment violations.” Id.; see also Earle v. Shreves, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 896399 at *4-5 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2021) (noting special factors counseled hesitation in extending Bivens to prisoner First Amendment claim). Thus, plaintiff lacks a cause of action. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted and plaintiff’s remaining claims should be dismissed.

O R D E R Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.