ORDER

PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Raphael Mendez is a civilly-committed patient at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota ("FMC-Rochester"). ECF No. 19 at 1. Mendez's complaint (very generously construed) alleges that officials at FMC-Rochester violated his right to due process, conspired to confine him illegally, refused to prevent a wrong, falsely imprisoned him, and failed to perform a duty owed to him. ECF No. 1 at 1-4. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 17. In a December 10, 2019 Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended granting defendants' motion to dismiss, and further recommended dismissing all claims with prejudice. ECF No. 28. This matter is now before the Court on Mendez's objection to Judge Bowbeer's R&R. ECF No. 29. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court overrules Mendez's objection and adopts the R&R with only one exception: Rather than dismissing all claims with prejudice, the Court will dismiss Mendez's due-process and false-imprisonment claims without prejudice.1

Mendez raises several objections to the R&R, but the majority of his arguments are frivolous or irrelevant, and only a couple merit comment:

First, Mendez objects to Judge Bowbeer's factual assertion that he was found incompetent to stand trial. ECF No. 29 at 2. In support, Mendez attaches an order of the District Court for the Virgin Islands dated July 30, 1990 declaring him competent to stand trial. ECF No. 29-1 at 2. Mendez fails to mention, however, that less than one month after issuing this order, the court ordered Mendez to be transported to the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina ("FCI-Butner") for a competency and sanity evaluation. See Gov't of the V.I. v. Mendez, No. CRIM. 90-43, 1995 WL 458439, at *1 (D.V.I. Jan. 26, 1995). After reviewing the results of that evaluation, the court committed Mendez to FCI-Butner for four months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Id. At the end of the four-month period, Mendez was found incompetent and indefinitely committed to FCI-Butner by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. Id. All charges against Mendez in the District Court for the Virgin Islands were dismissed based on this incompetency finding. Id. Judge Bowbeer's assertion that Mendez was found incompetent to stand trial is clearly correct, and therefore Mendez's objection is overruled.

Mendez next argues that his civil commitment is illegal because it was not authorized by the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Because Mendez is attacking the validity of his initial commitment, and because nothing in the record suggests that the basis for Mendez's initial commitment has been reversed or set aside, this argument is foreclosed by the reasoning of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Although Heck involved a suit for damages brought by a state prisoner, the Eighth Circuit has said that Heck's reasoning is equally applicable to actions for injunctive relief brought by civillydetained plaintiffs such as Mendez. See Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394, 406 (8th Cir. 2017).2 If Mendez wants to challenge the validity of his civil commitment, he will have to do so by filing a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.3 But as this Court has already explained to Mendez, Heck bars him from bringing this claim in a civil-rights action. See Mendez v. Meek, No. 18-CV-2332 (ECT/HB), 2018 WL 6259196 (D. Minn. Nov. 30, 2018).4

Finally, Mendez notes his "belief" that Judge Bowbeer, together with the United States Attorney, "instigated" his false imprisonment. ECF No. 29 at 4. His argument is frivolous for many reasons—most obviously because neither Judge Bowbeer nor the United States Attorney were appointed to their positions until many years after Mendez was confined.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objection [ECF No. 29] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 28]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.