Kolocotronis v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 04 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-1308WM,01-1308WM |
| Citation | 247 F.3d 726 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2001) CYRILL ATHANASIOS KOLOCOTRONIS, APPELLANT, v. JOY MORGAN; DAWN HOUCHINS; BRUCE VEERA REDDY; FELIX VINCENT; AND VASSARILLI, APPELLEES. CYRILL ATHANASIOS KOLOCOTRONIS, APPELLANT, v. VEERA REDDY, DR., M.D., APPELLEE. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Before Hansen, Richard S. Arnold, and Fagg, Circuit Judges.
Cyrill Athanasios Kolocotronis, an inmate in the Fulton State Hospital in Missouri, a mental institution, brings this appeal from the District Court's dismissal of two separate cases.
In District Court No. 99-4280, the plaintiff sued Joy Morgan and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged, in general, that the plaintiff had been fired from a job within the institution, at which he was earning a good salary, because he refused to take certain medications. The judgment of the District Court dismissing this complaint was entered on January 11, 2000. Later, on August 25, 2000, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It was not until December 4, 2000, that the notice of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal was untimely, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, so far as it concerns District Court No. 99-4280.
In the companion case, District Court No. 00-04055, the sole defendant is Veera Reddy, M.D. This case, also brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that plaintiff is being forced to take certain medications, and thus is being deprived of liberty without due process of law. The District Court dismissed the complaint in this case on the ground that it was not being prosecuted by plaintiff's court-appointed guardian. In addition, the court issued an injunction directing plaintiff not to file any further cases except through his court-appointed guardian.
We respectfully disagree with this action. Guardians of course have standing to prosecute cases on behalf of their wards. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17. In our view, however, there is no absolute rule that a ward may never prosecute a case in his own name. See Wheeler v. Briggs, 941 S.W.2d 512, 515 (Mo. 1997) (en banc) (). It might be alleged, for example, that the guardian is guilty of some sort of misbehavior, or is refusing to file suit without just cause. In addition, the ward may be threatened with imminent physical injury, or may believe that he is so threatened. We understand the desire of the District Court to establish some degree of control over litigation by Mr. Kolocotronis, who is a frequent filer of complaints that are often dismissed. A better approach might be to forbid the filing of any further lawsuits without leave of the District Court, a function that could be delegated, in the discretion of the Court, to a magistrate judge.
Another matter needs to be addressed. The District Court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act to this case, treating the plaintiff as though he were a prison inmate. He is not. H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taft v. Sassman
...in Cherokee, Iowa.1 A patient is not a prisoner within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). See Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2001) (concluding a mental patient is not a prisoner within the meaning ofthe PLRA and, therefore, is not subject to inmate-acc......
-
Jaye v. Barr
...(8th Cir. 2015) (unpublished), stating:Phelps was not a prisoner, as required for 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to apply, see Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001), and he had not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as required for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to apply. In addit......
-
Wright v. Benson
...that civilly-committed individuals are not prisoners and, therefore, are not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b). Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001). Other courts have reached the same conclusion. See Michau v. Charleston County, S.C., 434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 2006), cer......
-
Windeknecht v. Mo. Dep't of Mental Health
...Cir. 2009); Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding mental patient not a "prisoner" under PLRA). 2. Plaintiff lists these defendants in the caption of his complain......