United States v. Tarner
| Docket Number | 1:20-cr-183-RCL |
| Decision Date | 29 November 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CODY MICHAEL TARNER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
The defendant, Cody Michael Tarner, seeks release from federal custody and dismissal of his indictment for alleged violations of the procedure and timeline established by the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA). Because Mr. Tarner is no longer committed for competency evaluation or restoration his motion is moot. Therefore, the Court will DENY Mr. Tarner's motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will also DENY Mr. Tarner's motion to seal his motion to dismiss, and will DENY the Government's motion to file a sur-reply.
In addition, now that Mr. Tarner has given notice of his intention to present an insanity defense, the parties agree that the Court should order a psychiatric or psychological examination and report of Mr. Tarner. However, they disagree on whether the Court must order Mr. Tarner committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for that evaluation. The Court concludes that committing Mr. Tarner to the custody of the Attorney General will likely result in lengthy delay, and therefore orders that Mr. Tarner be evaluated where he is currently housed, the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility.
The Government alleges that on July 15, 2020, Mr. Tarner approached three government vehicles parked at the United States Supreme Court, doused them with liquid, and then lit one of them ablaze. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2. However, the fire spread to Mr. Tarner himself, resulting in burns to about 40% of his body. See id. For these events, a grand jury indicted Mr. Tarner on one count of Arson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), and one count of Destruction of Government Property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. See Indictment, ECF No. 6. The magistrate judge ordered Mr. Tarner detained pending trial. See ECF No. 5.
At a status conference on February 12, 2021, the Court granted defense counsel's oral motion for a competency examination. See ECF No 9, at 1. The Court ordered that Mr. Tarner “be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) for a period not to exceed thirty days for placement in a suitable facility for a competency examination.” Id. The Court also required the Government to update the Court every ten days on Mr. Tarner's placement and his transportation to this facility. Id. at 2.
On April 15, 2021, the Government reported that Mr. Tarner had been transported to the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in North Carolina. See ECF No. 14. In a letter filed under seal on April 22, 2021 (but dated April 15, 2021) the warden informed the Court that per C.D.C. and B.O.P. guidance, when Mr. Tarner arrived he was put in quarantine that would “last approximately 21 days.” See ECF No. 15. The warden requested that the 30-day evaluation period begin on the date of Mr. Tarner's release from quarantine and be extended 15 days. See id. At an April 22 status conference, the Court granted the request for an extension of time.
Another letter from the warden was filed under seal on July 21, 2021 (but dated June 9, 2021), along with Mr. Tarner's competency evaluation. See ECF No. 17. The evaluator found Mr. Tarner not competent and recommended that he be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for restoration to competency. See id. at 13. Mr. Tarner was then transferred to the D.C. Jail. Def. Mot. for Immediate Transfer to Butner FMC, ECF No. 18, at 2.
On August 6, the Court held a status conference. On August 9, the Court issued an order in which it, “[a]fter holding a hearing, and with the consent of the Government and defense counsel,” adopted the medical opinion in the competency evaluation report and found Mr. Tarner not competent. See ECF No. 18, at 1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), the Court ordered Mr. Tarner committed to the custody of the Attorney General, to be “hospitalize[d] for treatment in a suitable facility ‘for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward.'” See id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1)). From the date of the Court's Order until November 17, 2021, the Government filed nine status reports on Mr. Tarner's pending transportation and evaluation.
On November 18, 2021, Mr. Tarner objected to the delay by filing a “Motion for Immediate Transfer to Butner FMC.” See ECF No. 18. Until the present motion, this was the only time Mr. Tarner objected to the timing of his transport, evaluation, or treatment. Finally, on January 14, 2022 the Government reported that Mr. Tarner had been transferred to Butner the previous day. See ECF No. 31. In May 2022, the warden informed the Court that Mr. Tarner's restoration evaluation was complete. See ECF No. 32-1. Although the attached competency report assessed Mr. Tarner to be not competent, the evaluators reported “some improvement in [his] symptoms,” stated that he would likely be restored to competency in the future, and asked for an additional 120 days to restore Mr. Tarner to competency. See ECF No. 32-1, at 14. The letter and report were filed on the Court's docket on July 8 and on July 29 the Court issued an order granting a 120-day treatment period, see July 29 2022 Order, ECF No. 33. It did so pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(A). That provision authorizes the Attorney General to hospitalize a mentally incompetent defendant for treatment in a suitable facility for an additional period of time until defendant's “medical condition is so improved that trial may proceed” if a court finds a “substantial probability that within such additional period of time [the defendant] will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(A).
On November 10, 2022, the warden informed the Court that Mr. Tarner's competency had been restored. See ECF No. 34. On December 5, the parties submitted a joint status report requesting that Mr. Tarner be returned to the District of Columbia. See ECF No. 35. On January 11 the Court held a status conference and on January 23 it issued an order finding Mr. Tarner competent. See ECF No. 37. Currently, Mr. Tarner is housed at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility. Def. Proposed Order, ECF No. 64, at 2.
On August 22, 2023 Mr. Tarner gave notice of his intention to present an insanity defense at trial. See ECF No. 47. On October 2, the Court held a status conference in which it vacated the trial date and ordered the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order concerning Mr. Tarner's insanity defense. On October 18, the Government requested that the Court order Mr. Tarner to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for an insanity evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242. See Gov. Proposed Order, ECF No. 63. Mr. Tarner filed an opposition, objecting only to the commitment of Mr. Tarner to the custody of the Attorney General and instead requesting that he be evaluated at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility. See Def. Proposed Order. The Government filed a response. See Gov. Response to Def. Proposed Order, ECF No. 67. Mr. Tarner filed a reply. See Def. Reply to Gov. Response to Def. Proposed Order, ECF No. 68.
In addition, on October 20, 2023 Mr. Tarner moved for his release from federal custody and dismissal of the indictment for alleged violations of IDRA's procedures and time limits. See MTD, ECF No. 65. He argues that the Government held him at Butner for longer than the permitted time for both his initial competency evaluation and his later restoration. See MTD at 10, 13. He also contends that the Court found him not competent and committed him for restoration without holding the “hearing” required by 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Specifically, he finds fault in the August 6, 2021 status conference. At the status conference, counsel for the Government and defense agreed that the Court should adopt the finding of the competency report, which the Court later did in an order. Mr. Tarner argues that although he personally “object[ed] to the finding of incompetence,” the Court failed to afford him “an opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing” as provided by Section 4247(d). See MTD at 12. The Government filed a response. See Gov. Response to MTD, ECF No. 66. Mr. Tarner filed a reply. See Def. Reply to Gov. Response to MTD, ECF No. 69. The Government filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. See Gov. Mot. for Sur-Reply, ECF 70.
The matters are now ripe for review.
Since Mr. Tarner has already been evaluated, restored to competency, and released from competency-related commitment under IDRA, his motion is moot.[1]
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution,” a federal court “‘may only adjudicate actual ongoing controversies.'” D.C. v. Doe, 611 F.3d 888, 894 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988)). “Under the mootness doctrine, we cannot decide a case if ‘events have so transpired that the decision will neither presently affect the parties' rights nor have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future.'” Reid v. Hurwitz, 920 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial