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[Unpublished]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. 

____________
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-
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-