United States v. John Axelgard, No. 20-1092 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Commitment. The district court did not err in ordering Axlegard committed based on a mental disease or defect under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246; evidence in the record, including expert opinions, established Axlegard had a mental illness, that his dangerous behavior is related to it and he would likely discontinue his treatment if he were released. [ July 10, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1092 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. John Axelgard lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: July 7, 2020 Filed: July 13, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. The district court 1 ordered John Axelgard involuntarily committed based on a “mental disease or defect.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (authorizing commitment when 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the releasing a person who suffers from a “mental disease or defect” would “create a substantial risk of bodily injury . . . or serious damage to property”). On appeal, Axelgard’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and challenges the factual findings underlying the court’s commitment decision. Axelgard seeks unconditional release in a pro se supplemental brief and requests new counsel. We conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (stating that a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applies in this type of commitment proceeding); United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing the standard of review on appeal). Evidence in the record, including several expert opinions, established that Axelgard has a mental illness, that his dangerous behavior is related to it, and that he would likely discontinue treatment if he were released. See United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 966, 970 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, deny Axelgard’s motion for new counsel, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
