Locke v. Inman

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: February 20, 2020
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00244
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T EASTERN DIOSFMT IRSISCOTU RI EASTEDRINV ISION CHARLES LOCKE, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No4.: 20-CDVD-N2 44 ) MISSODUERPIOT F.M ENTAHLE ALTH), ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDAUNMDO RDER Thmiast itbsee rfo trheCe o uornpt e titpirosonec e orm'pslA alisbnoet fo.thr eeC ouirst petitmiootntiepoorr n'o sca esape adu pTehCreo. u writgl rlanp te titmiootntiepoorr n'o sci ene d formpaa upeBreicsap.ue stei tcioomnpelraa'pispn ettao br esa r equfoerrs etl efraosme confinefrmoemtn hMtei ssouri oDfMe epnatratlm teHhnCeetoa ulwrtithl ,l poertdiettroi oner filhei cso mploanai c notufo rrtms uitfoarfib lliean w gr oifth abecaosr ppuurss tuo2a 8n t u.§s2 .25c4.. ThCeo urnto ttehspa ett itiisco unrerrce onntfilanysea cd i vdielt aaitSn oeuet heast MissMoeunrHtiea alCl etnh(t "eSrE MM).HP Ce"tiitusin ocnlieehnrai crso mpleaxianhctot wl y hew adse taaiStnE eMdM HsCt,a otniltnhyg"a pto lsia[cihedwe a]bs e ianrgr eosnat cecdo unt ofb eiinnpg o sseosfas s ioo-nc 2ak liltecdkh neinav netrdsa nsp[ohrittmeoH]d i llsboro, MissCoouurnJita yiT lh.ui"sit ,us n clipefear t iwtaicsoh naerwrgi eatcd hr iamnehd e ulndd ae r permainnecnotm poertdeoenrrrc e ym andteoSd E MMHuCn daed ri ffeprreoncte Idfu re. petiWt(,\iSco hnaerrig naec dr imaicntapileo tni,st hioopunrleodrv tihCdeoe u writta ch o poyf hisst caotuedr otc skheetieh ftei asb tldoe o s oI.hf e i usn atbpolr eo vtihddeoe c skheetteto th e Couprett,i sthioosunilemdrip dleyn tthsietfy ac triem aicntuainlod nweh ri hcewh a hse ld. Additionally, it is unclear from the complaint whether petitioner is seeking conditional or unconditional release from his civil commitment. Thus, in his amended petition, petitioner ‘should make it clear what relief he is seeking from the Court. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 632.435, State ex rel. Koster v. Oxenhandler, 491 S.W.3d 576, 589 (Mo.Ct.App. 2016). Furthermore, petitioner should also articulate how he has exhausted his state remedies with relation to his request for release. See Charles Leader y. Mary Attebury, Case No. 14-0580- CV-W-GAF-P (W.D.Mo. 2016) (denying mental health patient’s challenge to commitment order finding him permanently incompetent to proceed because the patient failed to exhaust his state remedies).! Last, the Court will decline to appoint counsel at this time. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the petitioner will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the petitioner’s allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson vy. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.

The Court notes that petitioner has provided as exhibits to his complaint what appear to be two motions he filed in a St. Francois County Court case opposing motions for extension of time relating to his confinement. However, these documents do not qualify as “exhaustion” under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.040.“To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a person confined in a Missouri State Hospital must apply for release under section 552.040 before filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,” and if that application is denied, the confined person must appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. Kolocotronis y. Holcomb, 925 F.2d 278, 279 (8th Cir.1991) (internal citation omitted).

| At this time, it appears that petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint. However, he has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex. Thus, his request for counsel will be denied without prejudice. Accotdingly, .

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #3] is GRANTED. □ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send petitioner a court form for amending his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel [Doc. #2] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than twenty-one (21) days from this Order, petitioner must fill out the § 2254 form and return it to the Court. If petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further proceedings. Dated this 20 TK of February, 2020. \ ' Quek rer DAVID D. NOCE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE