Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, No. 14-10274 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals . Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's order civilly committing her under 18 U.S.C. 4245, contending that section 4245's statutory preponderance-of-the-evidence standard violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court concluded that section 4245's preponderance-of-the-evidence standard does not violate due process in light of the other significant procedural protections afforded to prisoners subject to civil-commitment proceedings. The different contexts for civil commitment - prisoners as distinguished from citizens - reflected distinct liberty interests that justified different evidentiary standards.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 13, 2015.
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10274 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 17, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SEALED APPELLEE, Movant–Appellee, versus SEALED APPELLANT, Respondent–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant, a federal prisoner, appeals one issue from the district court’s order civilly committing her under 18 U.S.C. § 4245. She maintains that § 4245’s statutory preponderance-of-the-evidence standard violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which instead demands clear and convincing evidence. We disagree and affirm. I. Appellant is serving a 216-month felony sentence in the Federal Medical No. 14-10274 Center, Carswell (“Carswell”). After her initial incarceration in another facility, she was transferred to Carswell after exhibiting behaviors indicative of mental illness. Although she initially responded positively to medication, she later refused treatment and regressed. Carswell staff evaluated her and concluded that her behaviors imperiled her health, so they recommended her for civil commitment to Carswell’s mental-health facility. Carswell’s warden submitted a certificate of mental disease or defect and requested a hearing to determine Appellant’s mental-health status. 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d). The district court appointed an attorney to represent Appellant, and the government submitted written evidence and oral testimony from Carswell’s chief of psychiatry to establish her mental illness. As part of the hearing, she had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and put forth her own evidence opposing commitment. After considering all the evidence, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence—as the statute requires—that Appellant suffered a mental disease or defect and was in need of treatment. The court issued an order committing her to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization under § 4245(d), and it is that order that she challenges. Appellant’s only issue on appeal is whether § 4245’s evidentiary standard is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause. She urges that, instead of a preponderance of the evidence, the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent demand clear and convincing evidence for civil commitment of prisoners. II. “This court reviews constitutional challenges to federal statutes de novo.” In re United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2013). Appellant’s argument relies on Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 432−33 (1979), in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due 2 No. 14-10274 Process Clause requires a clear-and-convincing standard for the indefinite commitment of a person with mental illness. According to Appellant, that holding indicates that § 4245’s evidentiary standard is unconstitutionally low. But Addington dealt with the civil commitment of an ordinary citizen, not an incarcerated felon. And that distinction bears heavily on the dueprocess analysis for commitment to a mental-health facility. The Supreme Court and this court have identified that difference in other cases that more closely resemble this one. In Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 366–67 (1983), the Court upheld the indefinite civil commitment of a defendant whom the jury found to be not guilty by reason of insanity, a determination made by a preponderance of the evidence. Similarly, in Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491–93 (1980), the Court observed that, although prisoners still have interests in not being confined to mental hospitals, they have lost their right to freedom from confinement as a result of their convictions. Recognizing this distinction, Congress inserted different evidentiary standards in § 4245 and § 4246. Finally, we have twice considered Appellant’s argument in other cases under plain-error review. See United States v. Muhammad, 165 F.3d 327, 333– 34 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Klat, No. 97-11282, 1999 WL 301320, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 1999) (per curiam) (unpublished). In both instances, we reasoned that the different contexts for civil commitment—prisoners as distinguished from citizens—reflected distinct liberty interests that justified different evidentiary standards. Reviewing the argument here de novo, we reach the same conclusion. In light of the other significant procedural protections afforded to prisoners subject to civil-commitment proceedings, § 4245’s preponderance-of-the-evidence standard does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
