Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03824/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3824

___________

William G. Carter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

R. Timothy Bickhaus, P.A., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2005

Filed: July 27, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William G. Carter was civilly committed after pleading not guilty by reason of

insanity to state criminal charges. He brought this civil-rights action against the state

prosecutor, asking for damages, release from custody, and other injunctive relief. The

district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B), and Carter

appeals. 

We grant Carter leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Having carefully reviewed

the record de novo, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam), we conclude for the reasons the district court stated that dismissal of the

Appellate Case: 04-3824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2005 Entry ID: 1933198
-2-

complaint--insofar as it sought damages and injunctive relief other than release--was

proper, in part based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). However,

we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d

231, 234 (8th Cir. 1996).

 

As for Carter’s request for release, we agree with the district court that such

relief is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but is properly sought in a habeas

corpus petition after exhaustion of state remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 487-90 (1973). Construing this aspect of the complaint as a habeas petition, see

Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (court must look

to substance of relief sought to determine if action is § 1983 suit or habeas corpus

action; prisoner’s labeling of suit is not controlling), we are unable to determine on

the record before us whether Carter has fully exhausted the necessary state procedures

to challenge his civil commitment. The district court should make this determination

after giving Carter the opportunity to demonstrate, through an amended habeas

petition, that he has met the exhaustion requirement. Cf. Rhines v. Weber, 125 S. Ct.

1528, 1533-35 (2005) (discussing district court’s options for handling habeas

petitions in light of time limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)). We suggest

the district court reconsider Carter’s motion for appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, as modified, and remand in part for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2005 Entry ID: 1933198