Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03503/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03503-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3503

___________

Vaughn Damon Wilson, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Alma City Court; State of Arkansas, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2010

Filed: April 12, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Non-prisoner Vaughn Wilson appeals from an order of the District Court

dismissing his action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) prior to service of process,

even though Wilson was not proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). Wilson has also

filed a motion for a restraining order.

Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam), we find that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint

under § 1915 because that statute applies only to IFP cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915

(limiting application of provision to IFP proceedings); see also Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d

271, 273 n.1 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (observing that procedures allowing

Appellate Case: 09-3503 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653588
dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)

amendments to § 1915 do not apply to a plaintiff who was neither proceeding IFP nor

in prison). In addition, because the period for serving process upon the defendants

had not yet expired, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure was premature. Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991)

(holding that a district court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) sua sponte

as long as the dismissal does not precede service of process).

Accordingly, we vacate the District Court’s order of dismissal and remand the

case for further proceedings.1

 We also deny Wilson’s pending motion.

______________________________

1

We emphasize that our remand should not be construed as questioning the

merits of the District Court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, only the timing of that

dismissal.

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3503 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Entry ID: 3653588