United States of America v. Timothy O’Laughlin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3322
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Timothy O’Laughlin,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: June 14, 2024
Filed: July 25, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Timothy O’Laughlin 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
motions for release. O’Laughlin 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 2016, the district court ordered O’Laughlin 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. United States v. O’Laughlin, 695 F. App’x 172, 172-73 (8th Cir.
2017) (per curiam). We later affirmed the district court’s denial of a pro se motion
for discharge under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) because only counsel or a legal guardian
may bring the motion. United States v. O’Laughlin, 934 F.3d 840, 841 (8th Cir.
2019). Section 4247(h) provides 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.”
O’Laughlin moved again for discharge under § 4247(h). This time, he asserted
a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause to access the courts by proceeding
pro se. The district court rejected the argument and denied the motion. The court
observed that the federal public defender has been appointed to represent O’Laughlin,
so counsel is available to seek release if circumstances warrant. The court also found
*The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court 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 --

no suggestion that counsel failed to act on O’Laughlin’s behalf in a situation where
release appeared possible.
O’Laughlin renews his constitutional argument on appeal. 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. O’Laughlin,
934 F.3d at 841. 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). O’Laughlin cannot show prejudice. The federal
public defender has represented O’Laughlin throughout the civil commitment
proceedings. O’Laughlin does not allege that counsel has acted negligently or
refused to advance a meritorious motion for discharge.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --