434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 2006), 04-7726, Michau v. Charleston County, S.C.

Docket Nº:04-7726, 04-7734.
Citation:434 F.3d 725
Party Name:Emory Alvin MICHAU, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County Detention Center; Charleston County Public Defender's Office; Julie J. Armstrong, Clerk of Court; J.A. Cannon, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees. Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Cor
Case Date:January 18, 2006
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 725

434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 2006)

Emory Alvin MICHAU, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County Detention Center; Charleston County Public Defender's Office; Julie J. Armstrong, Clerk of Court; J.A. Cannon, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Michael Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 04-7726, 04-7734.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

January 18, 2006

Argued Dec. 2, 2005.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-704-6-08AK; CA-04-709-6-08)

Page 726

COUNSEL

ARGUED:

Joseph Michael Moore, MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant .

Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACH, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Senn, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACH, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING and Judge DUNCAN joined.

OPINION

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge:

Emory Alvin Michau, currently detained in a state correctional facility in South Carolina, filed two civil rights actions

Page 727

against various defendants. After reviewing the complaints under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA") and the statutes governing in forma pauperis ("IFP") filings, the district court dismissed the complaints for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We conclude that Michau is not subject to the requirements of the PLRA and that the PLRA thus provides no basis for dismissal of the complaints. Nonetheless, because the complaints were properly dismissed under the IFP screening procedures, we affirm the decision of the district court.

I.

Michau was imprisoned in South Carolina after being convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and participating in the prostitution of a minor. As Michau was approaching the end of his sentences for those charges, the South Carolina Attorney General petitioned the trial court seeking a determination that there was probable cause to hold Michau under South Carolina's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"). See S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-70. The trial court found probable cause to conclude that Michau qualified as a sexually violent predator, and the court ordered Michau detained pending an evaluation to determine if he should be classified as a sexually violent predator.

While Michau was detained pending evaluation under the SVPA, he filed two actions in federal district court naming various defendants. The magistrate judge conducted a pre-answer review of the complaints in accordance with the requirements of the PLRA and the IFP statute. The magistrate recommended that the complaints be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendations and dismissed Michau's complaints. This appeal followed.

II.

The PLRA requires a district court to screen (before docketing, if feasible) complaints filed by prisoners and requires the court to dismiss a complaint if it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim." See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2005). Michau contends that because he is no longer serving a sentence for a criminal conviction, he is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP