The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1001•United States v. John Buckendahl
00-1001United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th CircuitMay 31, 2001
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 00-3885EM
_____________
Lorne Lei Wray, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. *
*
Mr. Anthony M. Ross; Mrs. Anthony *
M. Ross; State of Missouri, Franklin *
County; Missouri Department of *
Mental Health; Missouri Public *
Defender Commission, Franklin *
County; St. Louis Psychiatric *
Rehabilitation Center; William * On Appeal from the United
Lampros; Joan Ross; Roberta Gardine, * States District Court
CEO; Allen Blake, Asst. CEO; John * for the Eastern District
Rabon, Dr.; Richard Scott, Dr.; Ashok * of Missouri.
Mallaya, Dr.; Ron Scharer, RN; Ally *
Burr Harris; Alphonso Menotti, Dr.; * [Not To Be Published]
Gwen Portwood; Antonio Gesmundo, *
Dr.; Robert Steele; Beverly Buscemi; *
Karol Keil; Mario Carrerz, Dr.; Nicol *
Ross; Mr. Charles McClung; Mrs. *
Charles McClung; Unknown Ladd, *
Criminal Judge of Franklin County, *
Presiding in December 1997; Country *
Club Hills Police Department; Franklin *
County Sheriff’s Department; Thomas *
Johnson; Marian Brown, *
*
Appellees. *
-- 1 of 2 --
1The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-
___________
Submitted: April 2, 2001
Filed: May 18, 2001
___________
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG,
Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Lorne Wray, who was committed to the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Center after his plea of not guilty to charged criminal conduct by reason of insanity,
appeals the District Court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. The District Court did not err. Wray failed to state a section 1983
claim against any of the defendants, and he cannot attack the fact or duration of his
confinement in a section 1983 complaint. His remedy, in the first instance, must be to
apply to a state court for release under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.040(5). See Kolocotronis
v. Holcomb, 925 F.2d 278 (8th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.