Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01541/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01541-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aliens
Appellee
Area #51
Appellee
Fall of Satanic - Same Sex Marriages
Appellee
B.R. Jett
Appellee
Loretta E. Lynch
Appellee
New World Order of Satan - #666
Appellee
Paul Payen
Appellant
Prophet Ezekiel's Wheel
Appellee
Reptoids and Reptillians of the Lower Fourth Dimension
Appellee
Trilateral Commission & Council on Foreign Relations
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1541

___________________________

Paul Payen

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Hon. Warden B.R. Jett; Hon. Loretta E. Lynch, (U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S.

Attorneys - A.U.S.A.’s - Hon. Charles Samuels Over the Entire FBOP); United

States of America; Aliens, (Demons and Devils and U.F.O.’s) (Some Good and

Some Evil); Area #51; Prophet Ezekiel's Wheel, Wheel with Rotating Lights

Around it in Holy Bible - etc.; Reptoids and Reptillians of the Lower Fourth

Dimension; New World Order of Satan - #666; Trilateral Commission & Council

on Foreign Relations; Fall of Satanic - Same Sex Marriages

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: July 24, 2015

Filed: July 29, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 15-1541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Entry ID: 4300245 
Paul Payen, who is civilly committed and is presently confined at the Federal

Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Upon careful review, we reverse in part, affirm in part,

and remand the case for further proceedings.

In 1994, Payen was civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. He was

conditionally released in 1999. In 2009, his conditional release was revoked, and he

was remanded to federal custody. After further proceedings, a May 2010 order was

entered, directing the government to conduct an assessment of the continuing need

for inpatient treatment and confinement of Payen. Nothing in the record indicates

whether the assessment was thereafter conducted, or whether a court later

recommitted Payen beyond the assessment period. 

1

In January 2015, Payen filed his section 2241 petition, which--although largely

incoherent--named as a respondent the warden of his place of confinement,

challenged his continued confinement, and specifically requested a hearing. The

petition also challenged the constitutionality of the statutory basis for civil

confinements in general, and included allegations suggesting that he had been

forcibly administered psychotropic drugs. In dismissing Payen’s section 2241

petition, the district court, by adopting the report and recommendations of a

magistrate judge, reasoned that 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) provided an alternative statutory

remedy that precluded Payen’s habeas claim challenging his continued confinement

Specifically, we are unable to discern from the record whether, subsequent to 1

the May 2010 order, a court determined that Payen’s continued release would create

a substantial risk and ordered that he be recommitted beyond the assessment period. 

Thus, it is unclear whether Payen is currently committed pursuant to any court order. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f) (setting forth procedure for revocation of conditional

discharge; court shall, after hearing, determine whether person should be remanded

to suitable facility on ground that, in light of his failure to comply with prescribed

regimen of care or treatment, his continued release would create substantial risk of

bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another).

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Entry ID: 4300245 
and seeking a hearing, that his general challenge to the statutory scheme was

foreclosed by controlling case law, and that his apparent conditions-of-confinement

claim concerning psychotropic drugs should be brought in a civil rights action and

thus was subject to dismissal without prejudice.

Upon careful review, see United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir.

2000) (de novo standard of review), we disagree with the conclusion that Payen was

precluded from bringing a habeas claim--for which the warden would be the proper

respondent--challenging his continued confinement and seeking a hearing on that

basis, see 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g) (nothing contained in, inter alia, § 4246 precludes

person who is committed under section from establishing by writ of habeas corpus

illegality of his detention); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (federal district court can consider

petitioner’s claimthat he isin custody in violation ofConstitution); see also Rumsfeld

v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (federal habeas statute straightforwardly

providesthat proper respondent is person who has custody over petitioner; generally,

petitioner’s immediate custodian or warden of facility in which he is confined at time

he filed habeas petition is only proper defendant); Young v. Armontrout, 795 F.2d 55,

56 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se habeas petitions should be liberally construed). 

In all other respects, we agree with the dismissal. Thus, we reverse as to the

dismissal of Payen’s claimagainst the warden challenging his continued confinement

and seeking a hearing on that basis; we affirm in all other respects; and we remand

the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1541 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Entry ID: 4300245