Filed: Nov. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3706 _ Larry Coffman, others similarly * situated under the 632.480 et seq, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Alan Blake, COO; Jay Englehart, M.D.; * Marty Bellew-Smith, Ph.D.; Mary * [UNPUBLISHED] Weiler, Ph.D.; Linda Mead, Ph.D.; * Linda Whiter, LCSW; Mar Chessy, * Head Sec.; John Doe; James Doe, SA, * All M.S.O.T.C. Facility, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: N
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3706 _ Larry Coffman, others similarly * situated under the 632.480 et seq, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Alan Blake, COO; Jay Englehart, M.D.; * Marty Bellew-Smith, Ph.D.; Mary * [UNPUBLISHED] Weiler, Ph.D.; Linda Mead, Ph.D.; * Linda Whiter, LCSW; Mar Chessy, * Head Sec.; John Doe; James Doe, SA, * All M.S.O.T.C. Facility, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: No..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-3706
___________
Larry Coffman, others similarly *
situated under the 632.480 et seq, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Alan Blake, COO; Jay Englehart, M.D.; *
Marty Bellew-Smith, Ph.D.; Mary * [UNPUBLISHED]
Weiler, Ph.D.; Linda Mead, Ph.D.; *
Linda Whiter, LCSW; Mar Chessy, *
Head Sec.; John Doe; James Doe, SA, *
All M.S.O.T.C. Facility, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: November 1, 2005
Filed: November 17, 2005
___________
Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Larry Coffman, who is civilly committed to the Missouri Sexual Offender
Treatment Center, appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
1
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Following de novo review, see
Moore v. Sims,
200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we affirm, see 8th
Cir. R. 47B, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice as to any claims
Coffman raised that were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
See Schafer v. Moore,
46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We also deny
Coffman’s request for appointment of appellate counsel.
______________________________
-2-