Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00662-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT GOMEZ, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 15-03151-CV-S-RK 

 ) 

LINDA SANDERS, ) 

 ) 

 Repondent. ) 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 Petitioner, Robert Gomez, an inmate currently confined at the United States Medical 

Center for Federal Prisoners (“USMCFP”), petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Petition has been referred to the undersigned for preliminary 

review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.1. Petitioner contends that he is unlawfully 

confined at the USMCFP; that the USMCFP is not a “suitable facility” within the meaning of 18 

U.S.C. § 4243; and that he has been denied the right to counsel. (See Docs. 1, 1-1.) He seeks 

immediate release from custody. (See Docs. 1, 1-1.) Respondent filed a response, (Doc. 7), 

contending that Petitioner: (1) is lawfully confined at the USMCFP pursuant to a commitment 

order authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 4243; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief 

Petitioner seeks; and (3) a § 2241 habeas petition is not the appropriate mechanism to pursue the 

relief Petitioner requests. After a review of the record, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition, 

(Doc. 1), be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 2), is GRANTED. 

I. Findings of Fact 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 7
2 

On April 26, 2007, Petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California on one count of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, 

intimidating, and interfering with a Ranger in the performance of his official duties at Yosemite 

National Park, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3) and 111(a)(1), and one count of assault, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4). (Doc. 7-1.) On August 9, 2007, Petitioner was found not 

guilty only by reason of insanity the time of the charged offense. (Id.) On August 10, 2007, the 

District Court for the Eastern District of California found that the release of Petitioner would 

create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property to 

another due to his present mental disease, and ordered him to be civilly committed to the custody 

of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243. (Id.) Pursuant to § 4243(e), the District 

Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the Attorney General to hospitalize Petitioner 

in for treatment in a suitable facility until the state of California assumed such responsibility or 

until Petitioner’s mental condition was such that his release, or conditional release, would not 

create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of 

another. (Id.) 

Petitioner was then admitted to the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, 

Minnesota on November 7, 2007 for mental health treatment in accordance with the commitment 

order from the District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Id.) On March 4, 2009, 

Petitioner was transferred to the USMCFP in Springfield, Missouri for continued mental health 

treatment. (Id.) Currently, Petitioner is still confined at the USMCFP. See Inmate Locator for 

BOP Register No. 63396-097 or Robert Flores Gomez, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 7
3 

www.bop.gov/inmateloc (showing that Petitioner is currently confined at the USMCFP in 

Springfield, Missouri).1

 After holding a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243, the District Court for the Eastern 

District of California entered an order finding that Petitioner’s release created a substantial risk 

of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to his present 

mental illness on March 9, 2010. (Doc. 7-1.) Therefore, the District Court for the Eastern 

District of California ordered Petitioner’s continued commitment to the custody of the Attorney 

General until further order from that court. (Id.) After that date, the District Court for the 

Eastern District of California held a hearing approximately every six months to review 

Petitioner’s commitment and each time found that his continued commitment was necessary to 

prevent the risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another 

as a result of his mental disease or defect. (Id.); see also United States v. Gomez, No. 1:07-CR00094-AWI-1 at Docs. 32, 40, 45, 52, 53, 56, 64, 67, 69 (E.D. Ca.). 

 On July 20, 2015, the District Court for the Eastern District of California held another 

hearing regarding Petitioner’s commitment during which defense counsel received a letter 

containing a risk assessment panel report from mental health professionals at the USMCFP dated 

May 20, 2015. Gomez, No. 1:07-CR-00094-AWI-1 at Doc. 70 (E.D. Ca. July 20, 2015). The 

panel found that Defendant was suitable for conditional release.2

 Id. The District Court for the 

 

1

 A court may take judicial notice of an inmate identification or registration number and cite to an inmate locator 

website to confirm the identification or status of a prisoner. See Solliday v. Director of Bureau of Prisons, Civil No. 

11-CV-2250 (MJD/JJG), 2014 WL 6388568, at *2 n. 2 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2014) (citing Wolfe v. Zappala, No. 

2:09CV315, 2009 WL 1160932, at *1 n. 1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2009) (citing Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 

(“DOC”) Inmate Locator Website, taking judicial notice of the DOC Inmate Identification Number of the plaintiff, 

and stating “[t]he court knows from general experience with prison litigation that such inmate identification numbers 

are unique to a given prisoner, in other words, no two prisoners would have the same DOC inmate number.”). 

2

 Prior to the report dated May 20, 2015, the most recent risk assessment panel report was dated June 25, 2014. 

(Doc. 7-1.) That report concluded that Petitioner suffered from a mental disease or defect, most likely 

schizophrenia, and that his release from confinement would present a substantial risk of danger to others or the 

property of others. (Id.) Therefore, the panel recommended that Petitioner remain at the USMCFP for continued 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 7
4 

Eastern District of California directed counsel to advise the court if an appropriate facility was 

found to release Petitioner. Id. The court then continued the hearing regarding Petitioner’s 

commitment to a later date. Id.

On January 11, 2016, the District Court for the Eastern District of California held a 

hearing regarding Petitioner’s commitment. Id. at Doc. 72. The court noted that the probation 

office was currently working on placement for Petitioner for conditional release, and set another 

hearing for May 9, 2016. Id.

II. Conclusions of Law 

“If a person is found not guilty only by reason of insanity at the time of the offense 

charged, he shall be committed to a suitable facility until such time as he is eligible for 

release[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 4243(a). Specifically, courts are directed to commit to the custody of the 

Attorney General a person who creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or 

serious damage to the property of another due to a present mental disease or defect. 18 U.S.C. § 

4243(e); see also Archuleta v. Hendrick, 365 F.3d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 2004). In accordance with 

18 U.S.C. § 4243(e), a person civilly committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 

this statute shall be hospitalized for treatment in a suitable facility. Such a person can only be 

released, with or without conditions, by certification of the director of the facility in which he is 

hospitalized, or by the findings of a hearing held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) that release is 

appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. §4243(f). The constitutionality of this statute has been consistently 

upheld by the courts. See Archuleta, 365 F.3d at 648 (“The statutory procedure and substantive 

 mental health treatment. (Id.) In support of its conclusion, the panel cited to Petitioner’s history of aggressive 

behavior and poor compliance with treatment, which made community placement difficult. (Id.) According to that 

report, Petitioner remained on a locked unit at that time due to polydipsia and the need to control his water intake. 

(Id.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 7
5 

standard [of 18 U.S.C. § 4243] are clearly constitutional. See, e.g., Phelps v. United States, 831 

F.2d 897, 898 (9th Cir. 1987).”). 

While a person wishing to challenge his civil commitment pursuant to § 4243 may plead 

a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, “habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy typically 

available only when ‘the petitioner has no other remedy.’” Archuleta, 365 F.3d at 648. Further, 

18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) expressly provides the remedy for discharge from a civil commitment 

ordered pursuant to that statute. See Archuleta, 365 F.3d at 648-49 (“Regardless of whether the 

director of the facility in which a person is hospitalized has filed a certificate pursuant to the 

provisions of . . . [§ 4243(f)], counsel for the person or his legal guardian may, at any time during 

such person’s hospitalization, file with the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a 

hearing to determine whether the person should be discharged from such facility[.]”) (quoting 18 

U.S.C. § 4247(h)). Only the court that issued the order of commitment may grant a person 

statutory relief under § 4247(h), but it also has discretion to take jurisdiction over a pro se habeas 

petition filed in different district under either 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g), 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), or both. 

Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h)). “In these circumstances, a transfer of the petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a) [to the court with jurisdiction] is both permissible and appropriate.” Archuleta, 

365 F.3d at 649. 

Here, after being found not guilty only by reason of insanity, the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California civilly committed Petitioner to the custody of the 

Attorney General for treatment in a suitable facility pursuant to § 4243. Statute defines a 

suitable facility as “a facility that is suitable to provide care or treatment given the nature of the 

offense and the characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(2). At the court’s 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 5 of 7
6 

direction, Petitioner was committed to such a suitable facility, the USMCFP.3

 See Phelps v. U.S. 

Bureau of Prisons, 62 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 1995) (concluding that the USMCFP is a 

suitable facility for a person civilly committed pursuant to § 4243). The court was 

constitutionally permitted to order this action under the statute. See Archuleta, 365 F.3d at 648. 

While Petitioner may challenge this civil commitment, a § 2241 habeas petition filed in 

this district where he is currently confined is not the appropriate route in this case. Rather, the 

most appropriate route for Petitioner to challenge his confinement would be through a motion 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) filed in the court that ordered his commitment, the District Court 

for the Eastern District of California. See Archuleta, 365 F.3d at 648-49. The District Court for 

the Eastern District of California has discretion to take jurisdiction over Petitioner’s pro se 

habeas petition under either 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g), 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), or both, and is therefore 

the proper court to adjudicate Petitioner’s challenge to his confinement. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 

4247(h)). Given these circumstances, the Court recommends transferring Petitioner’s Petition to 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a) because it is best suited to address Petitioner’s challenge. Id. at 649. 

 

 

3

 As noted, Petitioner was initially confined at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. Though 

that facility is not at issue in the Petition, it is also considered a suitable facility for the treatment of a mental disease 

or defect. See United States v. Epps, 95 F. App’x 202 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that the defendant suffered from a 

mental illness requiring treatment in a suitable facility, such as the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota). 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 6 of 7
7 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation 

 Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 2), is GRANTED. 

Further, based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ David P. Rush 

 DAVID P. RUSH 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DATE: March 31, 2016 

Case 1:16-cv-00662-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 03/31/16 Page 7 of 7