From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perkins v. Hedricks

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 14, 2003
340 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2003)

Summary

holding that civilly committed detainee not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA

Summary of this case from Sellers v. Kazm

Opinion

No. 03-1808.

Submitted: July 3, 2003.

Filed: August 14, 2003.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.


Federal Medical Center detainee Victor B. Perkins appeals the district court's pre-service dismissal of his civil filing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was improper. The exhaustion requirement of section 1997e does not apply, as Perkins appears to be civilly committed and is thus not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions by a "prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility" under any federal law, until inmate exhausts available administrative remedies); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(3) (as relevant, term "prisoner" means any person subject to detention who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000) (person detained civilly for non-punitive purposes is not "prisoner" within meaning of PLRA, and thus administrative-exhaustion rules do not apply).

Accordingly, we (1) grant Perkins in forma pauperis status, noting that the inmate-account procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 do not apply to him, (2) remand to the district court for further consideration of Perkins's claim, and (3) deny his pending motions.


Summaries of

Perkins v. Hedricks

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 14, 2003
340 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2003)

holding that civilly committed detainee not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA

Summary of this case from Sellers v. Kazm

holding that plaintiff, who was civilly committed, was not a "prisoner" within the meaning of the PLRA and, therefore, the exhaustion requirements of the Act did not apply to plaintiff's civil action

Summary of this case from Calia v. Werholtz
Case details for

Perkins v. Hedricks

Case Details

Full title:Victor B. PERKINS, Appellant, v. Bill HEDRICKS, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Aug 14, 2003

Citations

340 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2003)

Citing Cases

Senty-Haugen v. Jesson

Moreover, the fact that all three plaintiffs were detained at the MSOP at the time of filing based on civil…

Groves v. State

See Makas v. Miraglia, No. 05 CIV 7180, 2007 WL 724603, at *12 n. 6 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2007) (copies of all…