United States v. Richard Perales, No. 19-3291 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil commitment. Under U.S. v. O'Laughlin, there is no right to proceed pro se in a proceeding under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4247(h), and the district court's order concluding Perales was not authorized to file a pro se Sec. 4247(h) motion did not deny his due process rights.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3291 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Perales lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: October 15, 2020 Filed: October 21, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Richard Perales, who is civilly committed at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, appeals after the district court1 denied his pro se 18 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the § 4247(h) motion. He is represented by counsel on appeal, and counsel has moved to withdraw. The district court concluded that Perales was not authorized to file a pro se § 4247(h) motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (stating that counsel or a guardian may move for a hearing to determine if a committed person should be discharged no sooner than 180 days after the court determination that a commitment should continue). Perales argues that he had a right to proceed pro se in a § 4247(h) action under the Sixth Amendment or 28 U.S.C. § 1654. We conclude that these arguments are foreclosed by our decision in United States v. O’Laughlin, 934 F.3d 840, 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding that the prohibition on self-representation under § 4247(h) does not violate the Sixth Amendment or § 1654), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2535 (2020). To the extent Perales contends the district court’s decision denied him due process, we hold that his due process rights have not been violated based on his inability to represent himself. See United States v. LaFromboise, 836 F.2d 1149, 1151-52 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246-4247 satisfy due process even though § 4247(h) does not permit an acquittee to represent himself). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw from this appeal and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 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.
