Carroll v. Hamik

D. Nebraska

Carroll v. Hamik

DecidedApril 28, 2020

Docket8:20-cv-00160

StatusUnknown

This text of Carroll v. Hamik (Carroll v. Hamik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Hamik, (D. Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TIMOTHY J. WILEY,

Plaintiff, 8:20CV160

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JERRY HAMIK, NRC Employee; and NORFOLK REGIONAL CENTER,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Timothy J. Wiley, a non-prisoner,1 filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Filing No. 2.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court finds that Plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the court to conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business.

1 Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) indicates he is committed to a state mental institution. Thus, Plaintiff is not a “prisoner” within the meaning of the PLRA. See Reed v. Clarke, No. 4:04CV3168, 2005 WL 1075092, at *1 n.1 (D. Neb. May 5, 2005) (“The plaintiff is presently in the Lincoln Regional Center pursuant to a mental health commitment. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (‘PLRA’) does not apply to persons in custody pursuant to the Mental Health Commitment Act, as the definition of ‘prisoner’ in the PLRA does not include a person involuntarily committed for reasons of mental health.”) (citing Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.2001)). Dated this 28th day of April, 2020. BY THE COURT: Kuchar Gp. □□□ Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TIMOTHY J. WILEY,

Plaintiff, 8:20CV160

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JERRY HAMIK, NRC Employee; and NORFOLK REGIONAL CENTER,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Timothy J. Wiley, a non-prisoner,1 filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Filing No. 2.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court finds that Plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the court to conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business.

1 Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) indicates he is committed to a state mental institution. Thus, Plaintiff is not a “prisoner” within the meaning of the PLRA. See Reed v. Clarke, No. 4:04CV3168, 2005 WL 1075092, at *1 n.1 (D. Neb. May 5, 2005) (“The plaintiff is presently in the Lincoln Regional Center pursuant to a mental health commitment. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (‘PLRA’) does not apply to persons in custody pursuant to the Mental Health Commitment Act, as the definition of ‘prisoner’ in the PLRA does not include a person involuntarily committed for reasons of mental health.”) (citing Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.2001)). Dated this 28th day of April, 2020. BY THE COURT: Kuchar Gp. □□□ Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carroll v. Hamik, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-hamik-ned-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack