United States v. Luis Vazques, No. 22-2324 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Appellant was civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 4246 in February 2009 due to a mental disease or defect that created a substantial risk of harm to the public. After several conditional releases and revocations, in April 2022, and while represented by counsel, Appellant filed a motion for discharge pro se, which the district court denied on the basis that a motion for discharge may not be filed by a pro se petitioner. Appellant appealed, asserting that prohibiting him from seeking a discharge pro se is a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Section 4247(h) provides the process by which a civilly committed person may seek a discharge. The provision plainly permits only counsel or the legal guardian of the committed person to file a motion to discharge Accordingly, it follows that a committed person may not file such a motion pro se. The court explained that Appellant asserts that this amounts to a denial of access to the courts. The court wrote that it has previously addressed the Sixth Amendment right of self-representation in the context of civil commitment, concluding that this right does not apply to civil commitment proceedings. Further, the court explained that even assuming that the right of self-representation applies to a Fifth Amendment access-to-the-courts claim, Appellant’s claim would still fail because he cannot show the requisite prejudice.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Commitment - 18 U.S.C. Section 4246. Section 4247(h) clearly provides that only counsel or a legal guardian of the committed person may file a motion to discharge, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's pro se motion; the right of self-representation does not apply in the context of civil commitment proceedings, and the district court's action did not deprive defendant of his Sixth Amendment rights; even assuming the denial applied to a Fifth Amendment access-to-courts claim, the claim would still fail because defendant cannot show the requisite prejudice.
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.