Opinion ID: 608943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Revocation Order

Text: 12 Turning to the merits of Mr. Woods' claim, we note that the Courts of Appeals have not had occasion to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f). In resolving Mr. Woods' claim we focus exclusively on the text of the statute. 2 We note, however, that the legislative history of this section is not helpful. See S.Rep. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3182, 3435. 13 Under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f), a district court may revoke a conditional discharge if two conditions are met. First, a person must fail to comply with his prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological treatment. Second, the court must conduct a hearing and determine whether in light of this failure the person's continued release would pose a risk to society. 14 Mr. Woods contends that the regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological treatment established for him failed to comply with statutory requirements. He argues that revocation based on the failure to comply with a flawed regimen violates due process. We agree. 15 The Minnesota district court was required to provide a regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological treatment for Mr. Woods under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e)(2)(A). This section does not expressly state who should prescribe the treatment regimen. However, the statute clearly envisions that a medical expert will be consulted or retained. Indeed, the statute requires that medical experts both approve and administer the treatment regimen. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246(e)(2)(A), 4246(f). 16 In the instant case, the Minnesota district court did not consult or retain a medical expert. Instead, it delegated the responsibility for prescribing a treatment regimen to the USPO for the Central District of California. The Minnesota district court seemed to consider Mr. Woods' discharge from civil commitment as analogous to a person serving a sentence of probation. This is evidenced by the boilerplate language used in the conditional release order. Although not prohibited by the statute, this approach makes little sense. Unskilled in the field of medicine, penal officers are hardly equipped for the complex task of prescribing individualized treatment regimens. 17 The Minnesota district court also erred by ignoring the express requirements of 18 U.S.C. 4246(e)(2)(A). This section requires that a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care must be approved by both the district court and the director of the medical facility in which the person is committed. There is no evidence that either the Minnesota district court or the director of the Rochester facility where Mr. Woods was located prior to his release ever approved the regimen established by Mr. Nagshineh. 18 It could be argued that these omissions are excusable because of the unique circumstances of this case. The Minnesota district court transferred jurisdiction over Mr. Woods' case to the Central District of California before Mr. Nagshineh had an opportunity to develop a treatment regimen. As a result, the court did not have an opportunity to review the prescribed regimen or obtain the approval of the medical director of the Rochester facility. 19 If the Minnesota district court was unable to comply with the statutory requirements, the California district court should have filled this void. There is no indication that the California district court addressed the deficiencies in the Minnesota district court's release order. It did not approve the regimen developed by Mr. Nagshineh or consult the director of the Rochester facility. In addition, no effort was made to retain a medical expert to ensure that Mr. Woods was receiving proper care. 20 The California district court had the opportunity to ensure that the statutory requirements were followed. It could have acted when it assumed control of the case during the revocation proceeding. The California district court should have realized that the proper procedures were not being followed when Mr. Nagshineh informed the court that Mr. Woods had failed to comply with his prescribed treatment regimen. Section 4246(f) provides that the director of the medical facility responsible for administering a person's treatment regimen should make this disclosure. 21 Cases involving the transfer of conditionally discharged persons such as Mr. Woods present difficult situations. A certain amount of discretion must be afforded to the district courts. However, this cannot come at the expense of the significant liberty interests at stake in civil commitment proceedings. See United States v. Sahhar, 917 F.2d 1197, 1206 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1591, 113 L.Ed.2d 655 (1991); United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 1315, 1320-22 (6th Cir.1986). 22 Congress was cognizant of this liberty interest and set forth specific procedural guidelines to ensure that it was not infringed. Id. In this case, the district courts failed to comply with these procedures. The result was a flawed treatment regimen. Revoking Mr. Woods' conditional release based on noncompliance with this flawed regimen violates due process. As a result, we reverse the district court's decision. 23 On remand, we instruct the district court to determine whether Mr. Woods currently poses a threat to society. If so, he should be recommitted. However, if the court determines that Mr. Woods is sufficiently recovered, he should be conditionally discharged under a treatment regimen adopted by the district court. This treatment regimen will have to be developed in accordance with the dictates of the statute. This will require the district court to consult or retain medical experts, including the director of the Rochester facility. In addition, the district court should select a medical facility to administer the plan. If Mr. Woods violates the terms of his treatment regimen his conditional release will be subject to revocation and he will risk recommitment. 24 REVERSED.