United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2558

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Jerry Archambault,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

Submitted: May 6, 2024

Filed: July 25, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________
PER CURIAM.

Jerry Archambault 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 motion for

release. Archambault 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 2010, the district court ordered Archambault 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. 

In October 2021, Archambault filed a pro se motion requesting discharge from

custody. A magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion because § 4247(h)

requires that a motion for release be filed by an attorney or legal guardian. The

district court adopted the recommendation and denied Archambault’s motion. 

Section 4247(h) states 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.” The district court concluded that this provision

authorizes only the committed person’s attorney or legal guardian to file a motion for

release. Archambault argues that the statute’s requirement that he proceed through

counsel or legal guardian violates his right to access the courts under the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

*The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge 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-
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 selfrepresentation under the Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil commitment

proceedings. United States v. O’Laughlin, 934 F.3d 840, 841 (8th Cir. 2019). 

Vazques held that even assuming the Due Process Clause affords a right to selfrepresentation 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). Archambault cannot show prejudice. Like the committed person

in Vazques, Archambault has been represented throughout the civil commitment

proceedings, and he makes no argument that his counsel was derelict, negligent, or

otherwise unwilling to file a meritorious motion for discharge. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-3-