USA V. DONNELL THOMAS, No. 18-50123 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 18-50123 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02557-BEN-1 v. DONNELL THOMAS, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 14, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, SILER,** and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Donnell Thomas brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s order extending pretrial commitment for an additional 120 days for possible restoration of competency. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Thomas first contends that the district court failed to apply the correct legal standard. While the order itself, drafted by Thomas’s counsel, did not reference the standard, the record makes it abundantly clear that the district court applied the proper standard: whether there is a “substantial probability” that he would be restored to competence within an additional reasonable period of time. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(A); see United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731, 769–70 (9th Cir. 2012). We find no clear error in the district court’s determination that the appropriate standard was satisfied. See Loughner, 672 F.3d at 770–72. The court’s determination was supported by Dr. Tyner’s opinion, which was, in turn, based on dozens of interactions with Thomas. The request for a Sell hearing was premature, and the 120-day extension was reasonable under the circumstances, see Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972), Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d at 1137 (explaining that Sell hearings are disfavored and that such hearings adjudicate whether a person should be involuntarily medicated when attempting to restore the person to competency). The district court correctly concluded that the attorney general should determine whether to file a dangerousness certificate upon a finding that Thomas cannot be restored. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(d), 4246. 2 The government’s request to supplement the record (Dkt. Nos. 20–22) is denied. The district court must now determine what further proceedings are appropriate. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
