Kwasigroch v. FDC Seatac

Full title: Grzegorz KWASIGROCH, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. FDC SEATAC, Agent…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 22, 2001

7 F. App'x 590 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

7 Fed.Appx. 590 (9th Cir. 2001) Grzegorz KWASIGROCH, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. FDC SEATAC, Agent, Defendant--Appellee. No. 99-35195. D.C. No. CV-98-1564-RSL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 22, 2001

Submitted March 12, 2001. ¹

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Former civil detainee who was in custody of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) pending his deportation brought Bivens action for injunctive or declaratory relief against unknown official who handled detainee's legal mail. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert S. Lasnik, J., dismissed action. Detainee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) detainee was not subject to Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) section providing that action may be dismissed for failure to state claim notwithstanding payment of filing fee, but (2) detainee's release mooted action.

Appeal dismissed as moot.

Page 591.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding.

Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Grzegorz Kwasigroch, a former federal detainee, appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) of his civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against an unknown official who handled his legal mail. He contends that he stated a claim for violation of his constitutional rights. Kwasigroch was civilly detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service pending his deportation, and thus was not a prisoner subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, in his complaint he sought only injunctive or declaratory relief regarding his mail. Because Kwasigroch no longer is detained, this action is moot. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir.1996).

DISMISSED as moot.