United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1304

___________________________

Sammy Pendleton

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Linda Sanders, Warden

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: June 28, 2014

 Filed: July 31, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Sammy Lee Pendleton appeals the district court's preservice dismissal of his

complaint. Currently before the court is Pendleton's motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. We grant Pendleton's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and summarily affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
Pendleton is civilly committed at the United States Medical Center for Federal

Prisoners(USMCFP) in Springfield, Missouri.Pendleton sued Warden Linda Sanders

of the USMCFP, asserting that Sanders had failed to pay Pendleton $465 million as

a result of a non-existent Supreme Court ruling. The district court dismissed

Pendleton's frivolous complaint preservice under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Section 1915A allows a

district court to dismiss "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity"

when the prisoner asserts a frivolous claim.

We agree with the district court's conclusion that Pendleton's complaint is

frivolous; however, the district court erroneously invoked the authority of § 1915A

as the vehicle for dismissal. For purposes of § 1915A, "prisoner" is defined as "any

person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of,

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms

and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program." 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(c). We have previously determined that a civilly committed plaintiff

does not qualify as a "prisoner" under the PLRA. Perkins v. Hedricks, 340 F.3d 582,

583 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) ("Perkins appearsto be civilly committed and isthus

not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA."); Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d

726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001).

Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's decision to dismiss Pendleton's

complaint preservice because any error in invoking the authority of § 1915A was

harmless. See Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006)

(affirming a district court's decision to dismiss a civilly committed plaintiff's

complaint under § 1915A because the district court also invoked the authority of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), rendering any error "harmless"). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)

allows the district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff's complaint at any

time if the action is frivolous. Pendleton proceeded in forma pauperis before the

-2-
district court, so the district court could have relied alternatively on § 1915(e)(2)(B)

to dismiss Pendleton's complaint. Because the district court would certainly do so

immediately upon remand, the district court's erroneous reliance on § 1915A is

harmless.

Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-3-