Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02106/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02106-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Earl Clark
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2106

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Willie Earl Clark, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 24, 2004

Filed: January 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Willie Earl Clark appeals the district court’s1

 order committing

him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, which provides

for the involuntary hospitalization of an imprisoned person suffering from a mental

disease or defect, until treatment is no longer needed or the expiration of the inmate’s

sentence, whichever occurs first. After a hearing, the district court found the

Appellate Case: 04-2106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2005 Entry ID: 1853332 
-2-

government had met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that

Clark suffers from a mental illness requiring treatment in a suitable facility. See 18

U.S.C. § 4245(d) (burden of proof). Having carefully reviewed the record, we

conclude the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Eckerson, 299 F.3d 913, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (standard of review). 

Specifically, the government offered a January 2004 report prepared by mental

health professionals who were involved with Clark’s care at the United States

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP) in Springfield, Missouri, where Clark

is confined. These MCFP professionals diagnosed schizoaffective and antisocial

personality disorders and hypertension; they opined that Clark’s paranoid and

delusional thinking prevented him from making rational decisions about his medical

care, including his need for antihypertensive medication; and they recommended

Clark’s commitment under section 4245. An independent mental health professional,

who emphasized that he had interviewed Clark after Clark had been receiving

psychotropic medication for three months, reported that there were no blatant

symptoms of a mental disease or defect at the time of the interview which would

clearly preclude Clark’s ability to function adequately in a regular correctional

setting. Notwithstanding this second report, the opinions of the MCFP professionals

supported the district court’s order. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Counsel’s motion

to withdraw is granted. Clark’s pro se motions on appeal are denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2005 Entry ID: 1853332