## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 18 72

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Gary Jo hn so n, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

18 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re MELLOY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Gary Jo hn so n ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r in vo lu nt ari ly co m m it ti ng hi m 1

un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 42 41 an d 42 46 to a m en ta l he al th tre at m en t un it wit hi n th e Uni te d
St at es Med ic al Cen te r fo r Pri so ne rs (USMC FP). We affir m

.

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard E. Dor r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ado pt in g th e rep or t and reco m m en da ti on s of the Hon or ab le Ja m es C. Eng la nd
, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r t he W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri.Afte r be in g fo un d in co m pe te nt an d un ab le to be m ad e co m pe te nt to st an d tri al
fo r bu rg la ry ch arg es , Jo hn so n was tem po rari ly com m it te d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. 4 24 1( d)

to th e cu st od y of th e At t or ne y Gen eral an d pl aced in th e USMC FP fo r a ris k

as se ss m en t to de te rm in e whe th e r J o h n s o n sh ou ld be rel eas ed

. Und er 18 U.S.C. §
42 46
, a pe rs on in t h e c u s t o d y of th e Bu reau of Pri so ns who ha s be en te m po rari ly

co m m it te d un de r se ct io n 42 41 (d ) wil l no t be rel eas ed if th e co ur t de te rm in es : 1) th e
pe rs on pr es en tl y su ffer s fro m a m en ta l di se as e or de fect ; 2) th e pe rs on ’s rel eas e

wou ld crea te a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of bo di ly in jury to an ot he r pe rs on or se rio us da m ag e
to th e pr op ert y of an ot he r; an d 3) no av ai la bl e su it ab le st at e pl acement e x is ts

. 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 6; Uni te d S ta te s v . LeCla ir, 3 38 F.3d 88 2, 8 84 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

A ris k as se ss m en t pa ne l co m pr is ed of th ree m em

be rs —o ne ps y ch ol og is t, on e
ps y ch ia tri st , an d on e so ci al wor ke r—d et erm in ed th at Jo hn so n su ffer ed fro m a se rio us

m en ta l ill ne ss an d th at hi s rele as e wou ld crea te a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of bo di ly in jury to

ot he rs or se rio us da m ag e to th e pr op ert y of an ot he r. Sp eci fic al ly, th e pa ne l fo un d th at
Jo hn so n su f

f e r s f r o m de lu si on s, is no t aware th at he is de lu si on al
, an d is pa ran oi d.
The ps y ch ia tri st m em

be r of th e ris k as se ss m en t pa ne l te st ifi ed at a he ari ng be fo re th e

co ur t th at be cau se Jo hn so n’s d el us io ns were pa ran oi d, th ey crea te d a ris k of bo di ly
in jury to ot he r s , s p eci fic al ly be cau se Jo hn so n’s de lu si on s m ak e hi m be li ev e ot he r in di vi du al s are tryin g to ha rm hi m , whi ch cau se s hi m gr eat ag it at io n. The ps y ch ia tri st al so te st ifi ed Jo hn so n’s ris k of cau si ng bo di ly in jury to ot he rs was in crea se d be cau se he ha d a hi st or y

of s ig ni fic an t d ru g a nd alc oh ol ab us e.

At th e req ue st of Jo hn so n’s pu bl ic de fen de r, Jo hn so n was ev a l u a t e d by an in de pe nd en t ps y ch ol og is t ap art fro m th e ris k as se ss m en t pa ne l, Dr. Ken ne th Bu rs ti n. Dr. Bu rs t i n a l so de te rm in ed th at Jo hn so n was su ffer in g fro m a m en ta l di se as e. Dr.
Bu rs ti n co ul d no t ru le ou t th at Jo hn so n’s rel eas e wou ld pr es en t a ris k of bo di ly ha rm
to ot he rs bu t co nc lu de d th e ris k p r e s e n t e d by J oh ns on was no t a su bs ta nt ia l on e, in

pa rt b ecau se Jo hn so n’s d el us io na l b el ie fs di d n ot pre se nt un ti l af te r hi s ar res t.

-2

-Jo hn so n arg ue s th e co ur t erre d in fin di ng th ere was cl ear an d co nv in ci ng

ev id en ce th at hi s rel eas e wou ld pr es en t a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of bo di ly in jury to hi m se lf

or ot he rs

. Sp eci fic al ly, he rel ie s on Dr. Bu rs ti n’s fi nd in g t ha t t he ris k o f hi s re le as e

wou ld no t be su bs ta nt ia l, th at hi s de lu si on s di d no t pr es en t un ti l aft er hi s arre st , an d
th at he ha d be ha ve d well an d no n- vi ol en tl y whi le c o mm i tt ed

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s fin di ng th at a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of bo di ly in jury ex is ts fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d
St at es v. LeCl ai r, 33 8 F .3d 88 2, 8 85 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

Jo hn so n ha s do ne well whi le in tre at m en t an d ha s no t be en vi ol en t. Howev er,

“ [o ]vert act s of vi ol en ce are no t req ui red to pr ov e” a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of bo di ly in jury

to ot he rs

. Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 29 9 F.3 d 67 3, 67 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). “ [A] fin di ng of ‘sub st an ti al ris k’ un de r § 42 46 m ay be ba se d on an y act iv it y th at ev in ces a ge nu in e
po ss ib il it y

of fut ur e ha rm to pe rs on s or pro pe rty.” Jo ne s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 63 U.S.
35 4, 36 4- 65 (1 98 3) . In Will ia m s, we n ot ed th at th e de fen da nt ’s m in im al hi st or y of

act ua l vi ol en ce an d “ rel at iv el y pr ob le m -fre e in carc erat io n” were in su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h th at th e de f

e n d a n t’s rel eas e wou ld no t po se a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of bo di ly
in jury. 29 9 F .3d at 6 77

.

Non e of th e p ro fes si on al s wh o e va lu at ed Jo hn so n b el ie ve d hi s rele as e wou ld

no t pr es en t a ris k of bo di ly in jury to ot he rs

. Onl y on e, Dr. Bu rs ti n, ch arac te riz ed th is
ris k as le ss th an su bs ta nt ia l. In ad di ti on to th es e pr of es si on al rep or ts , Jo hn so n ha s a le ng th y cri m in al hi st or y in cl ud in g a co nv ic ti on fo r ag gr av at ed as sa ul t an d an ad di ti on al ch arg e o f as sa ul t. Add it io na ll y , h e ha s a si gn ifi can t hi st or y of dr ug an d
al co ho l ab us e. We h a ve no te d th at th e m ajor fact or s in de te rm in in g whe th er an in di vi du al ’s rel eas e p r es en ts a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of ha rm of bo di ly in jury to ot he rs in cl ud e a hi st or y of in fli ct in g bo di ly in ju r y a n d a hi st or y of dr ug an d al co ho l us e,

am on g ot he rs

. U n i t e d S ta te s v. Eck er, 30 F.3 d 96 6, 97 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). Thu s, we

can no t sa y un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces th at th e co ur t cl earl y erre d in de te rm in in g th at
Jo hn so n’s re le as e wou ld po se a su bs ta nt ia l ri sk of b od il y in jury to an ot he r pe rs on

.

-3

-Und er sect io n 42 46
, in ad di ti on to fin di ng th at an in di vi du al to be co m m it te d

su ffer s fro m a m en ta l d i s e a s e a n d hi s rel eas e wou ld pr es en t a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of
bo di ly in jury to ot he rs , th e co ur t m ay no t co m m it th e i n d i v i d u al un le ss no st at e pl acement fo r th e in di vi du al is av ai la bl e. 18 U.S.C. § 42 46 (d ). Jo hn so n arg ue s th at th e Gov ern m en t fa il ed to pro ve th at no st at e p la cem en t was av ai la bl e fo r hi m

.

Jo hn so n was un wil li ng to rel eas e hi s m ed ic al reco rd s to th e St at e of Ten ne ss ee, whe re Jo hn so n co ul d po te nt ia ll y ha ve be en pl aced

. The MCF P ward en co nt act ed th e St at e o f Ten ne ss ee and le arn ed it wou ld no t accep t Jo hn so n in to pl acement wi th ou t hi s m ed ic al reco rd s. The Gov ern m en t s u b mi t te d a cert ifi cat e of th e ward en

co nv ey in g t hi s i nf

or m at io n t o t he co ur t. Ho wev er, J oh ns on arg ue s t he MCFP ha d a
du ty to pu rs ue ot he r al te rn at iv e s f o r h i s st at e pl acement an d th at th e Gov ern m en t be ars th e bu rd en of sh owi ng a st at e wil l no t as su m e res po ns ib il it y fo r hi m

. W e de te rm i n e d i n U n i t ed St at es v. W ig ren , 64 1 F.3 d 94 4, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), th at th e Gov ern m en t is no t req ui red to pu t on pr oo f on th e m at te r of st at e cu st od y as id e fro m th e in it ia l cert ifi cat io n by th e wa r d e n b e c a us e se ct io n 41 46 “ do es no t en do w th e

co m m it te d per so n with a jud ic ia ll y -en fo rcea bl e ‘righ t’ to st at e cu st od y th at m us t be
ad jud ic at ed at th e he ari ng .” 64 1 F.3 d at 94 7. Jo hn so n ack no wled ge s in hi s br ie f th at
W ig ren fo recl os es hi s arg um en t, ho wev er, he a s s e r ts hi s arg um en t to pr es erv e it

p e n di ng a po ss ib le po si ti ve ou tc om e in th e W ig ren cas e. Afte r Jo hn so n fil ed hi s br ie f, th e Su pr em e Co ur t den ie d c ert io rari . See Un it ed Sta te s v . W ig ren , 13 2 S. Ct

. 56 1 (2 01 1)

. Und er W ig ren , th e ward en ’s cert ifi cat io n was al l th at was ne ces sa ry fo r th e co ur t’s d et erm in at io n t ha t s ta te pl acement wa s u na va il ab le for Jo hn so n.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er co m m it ti ng Jo hn so n t o

cu st od y

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-