United States v. Joaquin Foy, No. 17-1088 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Commitment. The district court did not err in denying Foy's motion for conditional discharge under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4247(h), as the mental health experts who examined and treated Foy testified that his unconditional release would be dangerous in light of his mental illness, recent threats of violence and his statements that he would not accept release with conditions and would not take his medications if released without conditions.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1088 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joaquin Irwin Foy lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: August 3, 2017 Filed: August 10, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joaquin Foy was civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 in 2007, and he appeals from the judgment of the District Court,1 entered after a hearing, denying his 1 The Honorable Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. motion for conditional discharge under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in denying the motion. See United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1025 (2003). The mental health experts associated with the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, where Foy is currently confined, testified that Foy’s unconditional discharge would be dangerous in light of his longstanding, severe mental illness and his lack of insight; his recent history of threatening violence; and his statements that he did not wish to be released with conditions and would not take prescribed medication if released without conditions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
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.
