Opinion
Case No. 2:15-CR-107-WPJ
11-09-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOAN OSBORN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED UNDER SEAL MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF COMMITMENT ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Commitment Order, filed October 29, 2015 (Doc. 41), by Defendant Joan Osborn ("Ms. Osborn"). Having considered the parties' briefs and the applicable law, I find that Defendant's motion is well-taken and will be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Given the filings to date, the Court assumes the reader's familiarity with the factual allegations underlying this action. However, the Court highlights relevant procedural developments. On October 6, 2015, the Government filed a Sealed Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 30), in which the Government proffered a copy of a threatening postcard allegedly sent by Ms. Osborn addressed to this undersigned judge. On October 7, 2015, Ms. Osborn filed an Opposition to the Sealed Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 31) and a Motion to Recuse the Honorable Judge Johnson (Doc. 32). On October 15, 2015, the Court denied the government's request to supplement the record on the grounds that it would not alter the Court's decision-making process in determining whether Ms. Osborn is competent to stand trial (Doc. 35). The Court then issued a sealed Memorandum Opinion and Order finding Ms. Osborn not competent to stand trial (Doc. 36). On October 26, 2015, the Court received an email from the Docketing/Intake Supervisor at the United States District Court for the District of Utah containing a photocopy attachment of another arguably threatening postcard allegedly mailed by Ms. Osborn to the Court, appearing to be postmarked on October 23, 2015. The Court subsequently alerted the parties through a Notice of Communication filed on November 4, 2015 (Doc. 47). On November 4, 2015, the Court also issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (Doc. 48).
LEGAL STANDARD
The United States Supreme Court held in Cohen v. Beneficial Industries Loan Corporation that certain orders collateral to the merits of a case had sufficient finality such as to allow interlocutory appeals. See 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). To fall within Cohen, the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345, 1348 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997). "We agree . . . that a § 4241(d) commitment order meets the requirements of Cohen. It is analogous to the denial of bail." Id. at 1349. "Accordingly, we hold that a § 4241(d) commitment order is appealable." Id.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Osborn argues that the Tenth Circuit has held that an order directing commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) is an immediately reviewable collateral order, relying on United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1997). In Boigegrain, the Tenth Circuit abrogated their previous ruling in United States v. Cheama, which had held that a commitment order was appealable only after the district court determined, upon a finding of long-term incompetency, that a defendant was dangerous. 730 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th Cir. 1984). Instead, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the "majority of circuits which have considered whether a commitment order for an evaluation under § 4241(d) is appealable" and concluded that there is jurisdiction. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d at 1348. Otherwise, if an appeal was not allowed, there would be no remedy for the resulting loss of liberty, and a defendant must not be left without recourse to appellate review where there is an immediate and significant loss of personal liberty. See id. at 1349.
In its Response to Motion to Stay Execution of Commitment Order (Doc. 45), filed November 11, 2015, "the government takes no position on the Defendant's Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Commitment Order." Accordingly, the Court agrees with Ms. Osborn that the Court's October 15, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order Finding Defendant Not Competent to Stand Trial (Doc. 36) is an immediately reviewable collateral order. Thus, the Court will stay execution of Ms. Osborn's commitment pending resolution of her appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion is well-taken and will be GRANTED. The Court will stay execution of Ms. Osborn's commitment pending resolution of her appeal.
SO ORDERED
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE