This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee DivisionJul 27, 2005
Case No. 4:05CV12-MMP/AK. (N.D. Fla. Jul. 27, 2005)

Case No. 4:05CV12-MMP/AK.

July 27, 2005


Plaintiff has responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause to explain that he is being civilly detained pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, and he is therefore not a "prisoner" within the meaning of the PLRA and not required to submit a six months statement or make partial payments to cover court costs. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff is correct that the restrictions of the PLRA do not apply to civilly detained persons, and such persons are not "prisoners" within the meaning of that Act. Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000); Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2001). The court in Page specifically addressed the exhaustion requirements of the PLRA and held that persons who are civilly detained at the time they file their complaints, whether or not they were in the past accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for a criminal offense, are not "prisoners" within the meaning of the PLRA, and are therefore not subject to its financial or exhaustion requirements. Page, 201 F.3d at 1139-40. Thus, the Court's previous Order (doc. 5) will be vacated in part, insofar as it directed that payment for court costs be withdrawn from his account, but will remain in effect insofar as it granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is hereby


The Court's previous Order (doc. 5) is herein VACATED, only insofar as it required payment to be taken from his inmate account for filing fees. Insofar as the Order grants Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it shall remain in effect.