United States v. Kevin Dalasta
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8111
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Kevin Dalasta, with depression, anxiety, and intractable epilepsy who underwent a left temporal lobectomy, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(4) and 924(a)(2) for possession of firearms after a crisis at his parents’ home.
- Federal physicians and prior state-court reports concluded Dalasta is incompetent to stand trial and very unlikely (indeed, essentially unable) to be restored due to irreversible brain surgery-related cognitive deficits.
- The district court found Dalasta incompetent under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b)/(c) and asked whether § 4241(d) nonetheless required commitment to the Attorney General (via BOP) for up to four months to assess restoration potential and begin any § 4246 dangerousness inquiry.
- Defense argued commitment would be futile and harmful, urged immediate § 4246 dangerousness proceedings or non-custodial alternatives (records review or local evaluation); government argued § 4241(d) mandates commitment to BOP for evaluation.
- The district court concluded § 4241(d) mandates commitment to the Attorney General (implemented via BOP), ordered a sealed commitment for up to four months, and stayed the order pending appeal.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding § 4241(d) is mandatory, due process is satisfied by the statutory scheme, and the choice of facility is committed to the Attorney General (though the court encouraged flexible exercise of that discretion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4241(d) requires mandatory commitment to the Attorney General/BOP when medical evidence shows restoration is impossible | Dalasta: mandatory commitment is futile, absurd, and unnecessary when no chance of restoration exists | Government: statutory text and precedent require commitment for evaluation and possible § 4246 assessment | Court: § 4241(d) is mandatory; commitment required even if restoration appears impossible |
| Whether mandatory commitment under § 4241(d) as applied violates due process | Dalasta: forced custodial hospitalization far from home for invasive evaluations infringes liberty and is harmful | Government: limited statutory commitment is part of Congress’s valid process to protect community and evaluate competency/dangerousness | Court: no due process violation; § 4241’s three-step process and limited commitment meet constitutional limits (Jackson v. Indiana) |
| Whether district court should have ordered non-custodial alternatives (records review, local exam, or local BOP exam) instead of BOP commitment | Dalasta: alternatives would be less harmful and would accomplish assessment without commitment | Government: statute requires hospitalization in a suitable facility and gives Attorney General discretion over facility selection | Court: alternatives like mere records review are foreclosed by statute; choice of suitable facility is for Attorney General/BOP, not district court |
| Whether committing to BOP (rather than expressly to Attorney General) was plain error | Dalasta: (raised on appeal implicitly) BOP policy may unduly restrict facility choice and harm defendant | Government: BOP is authorized designee of Attorney General to perform functions under §§ 4241–4247 | Court: not plain error; prior practice permits BOP custody orders, but court urged BOP to exercise discretion flexibly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henriques, 698 F.3d 673 (8th Cir.) (treating § 4241(d) commitment as mandatory)
- United States v. Ferro, 321 F.3d 756 (8th Cir.) (upholding § 4241(d) commitment and its role in competency/dangerousness process)
- United States v. Shawar, 865 F.2d 856 (7th Cir.) (holding a district court lacks discretion to avoid commitment after incompetency finding)
- United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387 (2d Cir.) (permitting commitment to BOP as designee of Attorney General)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (due process limits on involuntary commitment pending trial)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standards for involuntary commitment and state power to protect community)