Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mark Allan STEFFES Defendant-Appellant
[Unpublished]
Mark Allan Steffes (“Steffes”) appeals from the district court's order granting the United States of America's (the “Government's”) motion to involuntarily medicate Steffes to render him competent to stand trial. This Court has appellate jurisdiction over certain collateral orders, including “Sell” orders regarding involuntary medication of criminal defendants for purposes of trial competency. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 176–77, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003).
At oral argument, the parties notified this Court of changed circumstances. During the pendency of this appeal, a clinical psychologist at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (“USMCFP”) informed the district court that Steffes met the criteria for “grave disability” and that USMCFP began involuntarily medicating him for his own safety. The Government may, after following certain procedures, involuntarily medicate a defendant to reduce the danger he poses to himself. See Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 225–26, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). In addition, the need for a Sell order may disappear after involuntary medication on other grounds. See Sell, 539 U.S. at 183, 123 S.Ct. 2174. A limited remand is required in this case to allow the district court to review the changed circumstances in the first instance.
Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of addressing whether the Sell order it entered is still necessary and appropriate in light of the changed circumstances. We retain jurisdiction over the appeal during this limited remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (stating the authority of appellate courts to “require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances”).
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2673
Decided: June 07, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)