Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. To the extent plaintiff's pro se civil action complaining, among other things, that he was being forced to take antipsychotic drugs was a habeas action, plaintiff's detention under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246 was lawful; however, to the extent the action is a challenge to the lawfulness of his forced medication, the suit could be construed as either a Bivens action of a constitutional claim for injunctive relief, and the matter is remanded to permit the district court to consider such claims after giving plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3859 ___________ Raymond Gearhart, Appellant, v. Marty C. Anderson, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 6, 2011 Filed: June 16, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Raymond Gearhart is involuntarily committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, and is confined at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. He filed this pro se civil action complaining, among other things, that he was being forced to take antipsychotic drugs. The district court construed the action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied relief after considering the government s evidence. To the extent that Mr. Gearhart s pleadings sounded in habeas corpus, we agree that his custody was lawful for the reasons the district court stated. As we review Mr. Gearhart s filings, however, we conclude that the gravamen of his complaint was a challenge to the lawfulness of his forced medication, which could be raised as a Bivens1 action, see Papantony v. Hedrick, 215 F.3d 863, 864-65 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), or as a constitutional claim for injunctive relief, see Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1231-32, 1236 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990). Thus, we remand for the district court to consider such claims after affording Mr. Gearhart an opportunity to amend his complaint. Cf. Young v. Armontrout, 795 F.2d 55, 56 (8th Cir. 1986) (remanding to district court with instructions to treat pro se habeas petition as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and to grant leave to amend complaint liberally as justice requires). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s denial of habeas relief, and otherwise remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ______________________________ 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
