United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-3087
___________
Roger Johnson; Ronald Farmer; *
Curt Brink; Christopher Trail, *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
Gerald Porter, *
*
Appellant, *
*
Francis Kamuf; Willie Wright, and all *
those prisoners similarly situated within *
the Missouri Department of Corrections *
or held by officers or agents of the State *
of Missouri who are affected by this *
litigation, *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
Dora B. Schriro, Superintendent; *
Michael Groose; Lynda S. Taylor; *
Steven E. Moore, Darin Morgan, *
*
Appellees. *
___________ Appeals from the United States
District Court for the
No. 99-3088 Western District of Missouri.
___________
Roger Johnson; Ronald Farmer; Curt *
Brink; Christopher Trail; Gerald Porter, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
Francis Kamuf, *
*
Appellant, *
*
Willie Wright, and all those prisoners *
similarily situated within the Missouri *
Department of Corrections or held by *
officers or agents of the State of *
Missouri who are affected by this *
litigation, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
Dora B. Schriro, Superintendent; *
Michael Groose; Lynda S. Taylor; *
Steven E. Moore; Darin Morgan, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: May 5, 2000
Filed: May 15, 2000
___________
Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Gerald Porter and Francis Kamuf, Missouri inmates incarcerated at the Western
Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC), appeal the district court’s order dismissing
their complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
-2-
Appellants also move to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant them
permission to proceed IFP, leaving the fee-collection details to the district court in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Further, after careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district
court as to Porter, because the record reveals that he has not exhausted his
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. However, we
reverse the judgment of the district court as to Kamuf, and remand so that he may
proceed on the merits, because he exhausted his administrative remedies before the
district court dismissed the complaint. See Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090
(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we grant appellants’ requests to proceed IFP on appeal; and we
affirm the judgment of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-3-