Wilbert Glover v. Matt Bostrom

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1104
___________________________
Wilbert Glover
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Matt Bostrom; Dave Metusalem; Joe Paget, #9; Sargeant Richard Rodriguez;
Ramsey County Sheriff; Greg Croucher, Inspection Enforcement for Ramsey
County Adult Detention Center Jail
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: September 25, 2023
Filed: October 4, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 3 --

Wilbert Glover appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his
retaliation claim against several detention center officials following this court’s
remand for consideration of that claim. We affirm.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
dismissing the retaliation claim because Glover did not allege that he suffered
physical injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See Richter
v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (standard
of review); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (prisoner may not bring civil action for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without prior showing of
physical injury or commission of sexual act); Kahle v. Leonard, 563 F.3d 736, 741
(8th Cir. 2009) (court may dismiss prisoner’s lawsuit for failure to comply with
§ 1997e(e)); Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2004) (§ 1997e(e)’s
limitation on damages applies to all federal prisoner lawsuits, including claims under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments). He also did not argue below, and does not
argue on appeal, that he was entitled to nominal or punitive damages. See N. Bottling
Co. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 5 F.4th 917, 922 (8th Cir. 2021) (party’s failure to raise
argument before trial court typically waives argument on appeal).
While Glover argues that the PLRA does not apply because he was not in
custody when the district court ruled on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the record
reflects that he was in custody when he filed the complaint, and thus the PLRA
applies. See Doe by & Through Doe v. Washington County, 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th
Cir. 1998) (finding that PLRA was inapplicable because plaintiff was not prisoner
when he filed case; Congress intended to distinguish between those who are prisoners
when they decide to file complaint and those who were not); Harris v. Garner, 216
1The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R.
Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now retired.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

F.3d 970, 985 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (PLRA applied to plaintiffs who brought
civil action while they were confined notwithstanding fact that they were released
from confinement before court entered judgment against them).
We further conclude that the district court did not err in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See Johnson v. City of
Shorewood, 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2004) (reviewing for abuse of discretion
district court’s decision to dismiss supplemental state law claims; when court
dismisses federal claims before trial, balance of factors to be considered point toward
declining to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state law claims).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --