Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff was not subject to the restriction of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g) because his pleadings in this court and the district court reflect that he was released from incarceration in August, 2014 and was not a prisoner at the time he filed his complaint and his notice of appeal to this court; plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the dismissal of his compliant is vacated; remanded for further proceedings. [ February 07, 2017
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3856 ___________________________ Samuel E. Haley lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States Government; Deborah Leff, US DOJ Pardon Attorney; Marie Rustin, US Parole Commissioner lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: January 31, 2017 Filed: February 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Samuel E. Haley appeals after the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his civil rights action, based on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (threestrikes rule), and dismissed his complaint. Mr. Haley is not subject to the restrictions of section 1915(g), because his filings in the district court and in this court reflect that he was released from incarceration in August 2014, he was living in a transitional housing facility, and he was not a prisoner at the time he filed his complaint and his notice of appeal to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) (as used in this section, “prisoner” means--as relevant--any person incarcerated in any facility, who is convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or terms or conditions of parole, probation, or pretrial release); Owens v. Isaac, 487 F.3d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (reviewing de novo district court’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g)). We therefore grant Mr. Haley’s motion to proceed IFP in this court, we vacate the district court’s denial of IFP and dismissal of Mr. Haley’s complaint, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We deny the pending motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ -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.
