United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3065 ___________________________

Raphael Mendez

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

FMC Facility Section, et al

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Filed: January 27, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Raphael Mendez is civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 and confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (“FMC”). He brought this civil action against FMC and numerous correctional officers alleging they are subjecting him to an unconstitutional condition of confinement, namely, failing to remedy a window in his cell that allows in cold air that leaves him unable to sleep. Mendez appeals the district court1 order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Mendez’s Complaint failed to specify the relief requested, contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, which is essential to determining the applicable legal standard. See Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644, 646-47 (8th Cir. 2004). The district court nonetheless reviewed the claims de novo and determined they failed to state a claim:

In neither the Complaint nor his objection [to Magistrate Judge Leung’s recommendations] does Mendez identify any deprivation of a human need that FMC-Rochester imposed as punishment. . . . FMC- Rochester sought to mitigate the effects of the weather by giving Mendez additional blankets and clothing to protect against the cold. The resulting cold temperatures were beyond the control of a government entity and not intended as a punishment.

After careful de novo review, we agree. See Karsjens v. Lourey, 988 F.3d 1047, 1052-54 (8th Cir. 2021). Mendez’s additional claim that he is being unlawfully confined at FMC is without merit. His remedy for that claim is to file a motion “for a hearing to determine whether the person should be discharged from such facility” with the court that ordered his commitment, the Eastern District of North Carolina. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g); Archuleta, 365 F.3d at 648-49.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-