United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3761

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

David Garner,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

Submitted: February 2, 2022

Filed: July 11, 2022

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

David Garner is an inmate serving a sentence in federal custody after he was

convicted in 2007 for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. In July

2021, the government petitioned under 18 U.S.C. § 4245(a) to determine Garner’s

present mental condition. After a hearing, the district court ordered Garner

committed to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment of a mental disease
or defect at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 4245(d). Garner filed a notice of appeal on his own without counsel, and the clerk

of this court appointed the federal public defender to represent Garner on appeal. 

Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from representing Garner and a separate

motion to file counsel’s motion to withdraw under seal.

We deny the motion to file under seal as overbroad. Counsel states that the

motion to withdraw will cite “psychological reports and conclusions admitted into

evidence,” and that “the private nature of these documents” justifies filing them under

seal. But only two paragraphs of the nine-page motion to withdraw refer to

psychological reports and conclusions. Assuming for the sake of analysis that the

psychological information should be sealed, there is no basis to seal the remainder of

the motion to withdraw. A proper motion to seal should be narrowly drawn and

accompanied by a proposed redacted filing for the public docket. As counsel’s

present motion seeks to seal the entire motion to withdraw without any proffered

justification, the motion is denied.

We note also that any motion to seal must justify why psychological reports

and conclusions should be filed under seal. Court proceedings are presumptively

public. Counsel has not cited authority or developed an argument as to why a court’s

decision to commit a person against his will for mental health treatment should be

made and reviewed in secret. Public court records not infrequently include otherwise

private medical information in cases involving such matters as disability benefits,

e.g., Schmitt v. Kijakazi, 27 F.4th 1353, 1358-60 (8th Cir. 2022), insanity defenses

in criminal cases, e.g., Elam v. Denney, 662 F.3d 1059, 1061-63 (8th Cir. 2011),

alleged medical malpractice, e.g., Miner v. United States, 94 F.3d 1127, 1128-30 (8th

Cir. 1996), and eligibility for execution in capital cases, e.g., Williams v. Kelley, 858

F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2017). In a civil commitment case, as in these others, a court’s

decision on the merits often depends on an assessment of medical or psychological

evidence. Any renewed motion to seal should address specifically why information

-2-
that is material to a decision on whether a person is properly committed involuntarily

for mental health treatment should not be available for public scrutiny.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw suggests that there is no non-frivolous issue for

appeal and that he is ethically obliged to withdraw. Counsel points to conflicting

guidance in unpublished decisions of this court about whether his motion to withdraw

should be accompanied by a brief of the sort described in Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). In one decision, this court concluded that the prophylactic Anders

framework was inapplicable, and directed counsel not to file an Anders-type brief in

future cases, because there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil commitment

proceeding. United States v. Cabines, 816 F. App’x 29, 30 n.2 (8th Cir. 2020) (per

curiam). In another, however, this court directed counsel to file a brief in accordance

with the Anders procedures. United States v. Lamons, No. 21-2728 (8th Cir. Oct. 4,

2021) (order denying motion for leave to withdraw). Counsel did not file an Anders

brief in this case, but understandably expressed uncertainty in the motion about how

an attorney should proceed.

We will grant the motion to withdraw and will not require a brief of the sort

described in Anders. The prophylactic Anders procedures and their constitutional

equivalents apply only when a litigant has a constitutional right to counsel. 

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 554-55 (1987). A prisoner who is subject to

a hearing on his mental condition is entitled to counsel at the hearing under a statute. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 4245(c), 4247(d). But this court has said that there is no constitutional

right to counsel at such a hearing. United States v. Veltman, 9 F.3d 718, 721 & n.5

(8th Cir. 1993); see Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 497 (1980) (plurality opinion); id.

at 498-500 (Powell, J., concurring in part); T.R. v. Havens, 612 F. App’x 83, 87 (3d

Cir. 2015). It follows that there is no constitutional right to counsel on appeal from

an order committing the prisoner for treatment. On review of the motion and the

record, we are satisfied that counsel’s ethical obligation to refrain from prosecuting

a frivolous appeal justifies his motion to withdraw.

-3-
For these reasons, the motion to seal counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied,

and the motion to withdraw is granted, subject to any further representation that

counsel deems appropriate with regard to the matter of filing documents under seal. 

______________________________

-4-