Schram v. Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that an Amended Judgment shall be entered, after whichPlaintiff has 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRIAN SCHRAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA LAURELL, Social Worker,
SHANNON BLACK, Program
Director, and CINDY DYKEMAN,
Program Manager,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:16CV3071

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a civilly committed non-prisoner, was found financially eligible to
proceed in forma pauperis in this case (Filing No. 5), and the court subsequently
analyzed Plaintiff’s complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 However, the
Judgment dismissing this case erroneously contained language applicable only to
prisoners under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Therefore, and pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(a) (court may correct mistake in judgment on its own without notice), an
Amended Judgment shall be entered, after which Plaintiff will have 30 days to file a
notice of appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that an Amended Judgment shall be entered, after which
Plaintiff has 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
1

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that civilly committed
individuals are not prisoners and are not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b).
Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001); see also Perkins v.
Hedricks, 340 F.3d 582, 583 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Perkins appears to be
civilly committed and is thus not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA.”);
Pendleton v. Sanders, 565 F. App’x 584 (8th Cir. 2014) (a civilly committed plaintiff
is not a “prisoner” under the PLRA) (unpublished).

DATED this 10th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2