United States of America v. Jerry Archambault

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2558
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Jerry Archambault,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: May 6, 2024
Filed: July 25, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Jerry Archambault is hospitalized in the custody of the Attorney General under
18 U.S.C. § 4246. He appeals an order of the district court* denying his motion for
release. Archambault challenges the constitutionality of a requirement in 18 U.S.C.
§ 4247(h) that only counsel or a legal guardian may file a motion seeking discharge
from custody.
In 2010, the district court ordered Archambault committed under § 4246 on the
ground that he suffered from a mental disease or defect, and that his release would
create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the
property of another.
In October 2021, Archambault filed a pro se motion requesting discharge from
custody. A magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion because § 4247(h)
requires that a motion for release be filed by an attorney or legal guardian. The
district court adopted the recommendation and denied Archambault’s motion.
Section 4247(h) states that “counsel for the person or his legal guardian may,
at any time during such person’s commitment, file with the court that ordered the
commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether the person should be
discharged from such facility.” The district court concluded that this provision
authorizes only the committed person’s attorney or legal guardian to file a motion for
release. Archambault argues that the statute’s requirement that he proceed through
counsel or legal guardian violates his right to access the courts under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
*The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the
Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

This court, however, considered and rejected the same argument in United
States v. Vazques, 81 F.4th 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2023). The constitutional right to self-
representation under the Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil commitment
proceedings. United States v. O’Laughlin, 934 F.3d 840, 841 (8th Cir. 2019).
Vazques held that even assuming the Due Process Clause affords a right to self-
representation as an aspect of a right to access the courts, a complaining party would
have to show prejudice to prevail. 81 F.4th at 822; see Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979,
981 (8th Cir. 2003). Archambault cannot show prejudice. Like the committed person
in Vazques, Archambault has been represented throughout the civil commitment
proceedings, and he makes no argument that his counsel was derelict, negligent, or
otherwise unwilling to file a meritorious motion for discharge.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --