USCA11 Case: 19-15042 Date Filed: 09/29/2022 Page: 1 of 14 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-15042 ____________________ LYNCOLN DANGLAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE OF GEORGIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GREGORY C. DOZIER, sued in his offical and individual capacity, as Commissioner of the State of Georgia Department of Corrections, SMITH SP WARDEN, RONNIE BYNUM, sued in his official and individual capacity as Superintendent for Smith Transitional Center, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 19-15042 Date Filed: 09/29/2022 Page: 2 of 14 2 Opinion of the Court 19-15042 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03537-ELR ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of Lyncoln Danglar’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A—the early screening provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The early screening provision of the PLRA states that “[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental en- tity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 1 1In conducting this review, “the court is to identify cognizable claims, or dis- miss the complaint or portions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from that relief.” White v. Lemma, 947 F.3d 1373, 1377 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “A dismissal for failure to state a claim under the early screening provision is no different from a dismissal under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Id. at 1376–77. Thus, for purposes of this opinion, we accept the allegations in the amended complaint as true and USCA11 Case: 19-15042 Date Filed: 09/29/2022 Page: 3 of 14 19-15042 Opinion of the Court 3 Danglar makes several arguments. As a threshold issue on appeal, Danglar contends that the district court erred in designating him a “prisoner” under the PLRA at the time he filed his pro se complaint and that the district court further erred in ordering him to pay a filing fee before the district court. 2 After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse and remand the district court’s order. We hold that the district court erred in applying the PLRA to Danglar’s action be- cause Danglar, as a civil detainee in ICE custody, was not a “pris- oner” under the PLRA when he filed his action. Thus, Danglar’s complaint must be viewed by the district court in the first instance and outside of the context of the PLRA on remand. Moreover, as Dangler was not a “prisoner” for purposes of the PLRA at the time that he filed this action, on remand, the district court shall return …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals