United States v. Erik Becerra, No. 22-2403 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Respondent suffers from multiple mental disorders, including schizophrenia. In 2018, he was sentenced to 80 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He was due to be released on January 8, 2021. Prior to his release, the government filed a petition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 4246, requesting that Respondent be committed to the custody of the Attorney General because, the government asserted, Respondent suffers from mental disorders that pose a significant danger to the public if he were released. The district court granted the government’s Section 4246 petition, of which Respondent appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Respondent’s main assertion, that “the evidence presented at the Section 4246 hearing failed to demonstrate . . . that he is ‘presently’ suffering from a mental disease which now poses a substantial risk of bodily injury to others,” is belied by his own testimony. For example, at the Section 4246 hearing, he testified that he started the CIA and that he has “to get violent with some of these people, dangerous people in the community,” in order to protect the community. This, in combination with the evidence that he actually acted upon his delusions when he attacked other inmates and a prison official, shows that he is suffering from a mental disease that now poses a substantial risk of bodily injury to others. The district court’s findings, to that effect, were not clearly erroneous.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil Commitment - 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial of Becerra's motion to proceed pro se, because he failed to seek the district court's review of the magistrate judge's ruling; the district court did not err in relying, among other things, on Becerra's criminal history in determining he presented a substantial risk of bodily injury to others if released; the district court did not err in determining that Becerra suffered from a mental disease or defect, that he would be dangerous if released, that there was a direct causal nexus between his mental disease and his dangerousness, and that no other suitable state placement existed.
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.