Victor B. Perkins v. Bill Hedricks

Eighth Circuit

Victor B. Perkins v. Bill Hedricks

340 F.3d 582, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16662, 2003 WL 21939838

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 14, 2003

Docket03-1808

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 340 F.3d 582 (Victor B. Perkins v. Bill Hedricks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Victor B. Perkins v. Bill Hedricks, 340 F.3d 582, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16662, 2003 WL 21939838 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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 for-ma 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

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 for-ma 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.3d 582, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16662, 2003 WL 21939838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-b-perkins-v-bill-hedricks-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack