USA v. Dozier

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 6:20-cv-03314-MDH
)
ANTHONY DOZIER, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Amend Findings of Fact (Doc. 79);
Motion for Order to Supplement Findings (Doc. 80); Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc.
81); Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82); Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 83);
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 84); and Motion to File Brief/Extension Request.
On March 12, 2026, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge to grant the Government’s Motion for Revocation of Conditional Release. (Doc. 77). Eric
George, U.S. Probation Officer for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, testified that Defendant had violated his conditions of release. Id. Specifically on July 8,
2025, the Defendant was nearly arrested and charged with the crime of harassment after it was
learned that he was sending excessive and alarming text messages to his ex-girlfriend, Carlin
Fleck. Id. The Defendant was admonished regarding his behavior and was provided clear
instruction to have no contact of any kind with Ms. Fleck. Id. On October 21, 2025, the Defendant
violated his conditions of release by honking and waving at the former girlfriend, thereby
breaching an order of protection prohibiting any contact. Id. The Defendant did not testify during
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 9

2
the hearing. Id. The Defendant now brings his motions seeking to amend, supplement, alter, or
dismiss the Court’s March 12, 2026, Order as well as leave to appeal the Court’s ruling in forma
pauperis and for appointment of counsel. The Court will take each motion in turn.
I. 	Motion to Amend Findings of Fact (Doc. 79)
The Defendant wishes to amend two findings of fact with regard to the Court’s May 12,
2026, Order. The first amendment the Defendant wishes to make concerns the July 8, 2025, text
message incident with Ms. Fleck. The Defendant wishes to amend the Order to state that
“Defendant was not arrested nor charged with the crime of harassment after sending text messages
to his friend Carlin Fleck.” (Doc. 79, page 1). The second amendment the Defendant wishes to
make concerns the October 21, 2025 incident of honking at waiving at Ms. Fleck arguing it should
either be stricken or amended to read “Anthony Dozier was at work on Oct. 21, 2025 and therefore,
it would have been impossible for him to have been the person claimed to have honked and waived
at Carlin Fleck.” Id.
The Defendant raises Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 in support of his motion.
However, as this cause of action arose from an 18 U.S.C. § 4246 Petition to Determine Present
Mental Condition of an Imprisoned Person, the correct federal rule governing this action is Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 governs magistrate judges pretrial
orders. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) applies which states:
(1) Findings and Recommendations. A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the
required proceedings when assigned, without the parties’ consent, to hear a pretrial
matter dispositive of a claim or defense or a prisoner petition challenging the
conditions of confinement. A record must be made of all evidentiary proceedings
and may, at the magistrate judge’s discretion, be made of any other proceedings.
The magistrate judge must 	enter 	a recommended 	disposition, 	including, 	if
appropriate, proposed finding of fact. The clerk must immediately serve a copy of
each party as provided in Rule 5(b).
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 9

3
(2) Objections. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition, a party may serve and file specified written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. Unless the district judge orders
otherwise, the objecting party must promptly arrange for transcribing the record, or
whatever portions of it the parties agree to or the magistrate judge considers
sufficient.
(3) Resolving Objections. The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)-(3).
The Court will deny Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Amend Findings of Fact. Here, the
Defendant timely objected to the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 76). The objection read:
Defendant Anthony Dozier respectfully objects to the findings in the Report and
Recommendation 	of 	the 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	(D.E. 	75), 	and 	the
recommendation that Defendant’s conditional release previously imposed should
be revoked and that Defendant should remain committed under the provisions of
18 U.S.C. § 4246(f).
Id. Nowhere in the objection does the Defendant raise the findings of fact he wished to include
within the Report and Recommendations. Additionally, The Court’s March 12, 2026, does not
state that the Defendant was charged with harassment but was nearly charged. (Doc. 77) (emphasis
added). Further, there is ample evidence within the record to demonstrate by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Defendant was indeed the one who had honked and waved at Ms. Fleck on
October 21, 2025. The Defendant has failed to raise any evidence that would corroborate the
amendments he wishes to amend. For these reasons, the Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Amend
Findings of Fact is DENIED.
II. 	Motion for Order to Supplement Findings (Doc. 80)
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 9

4
The Defendant next asks the Court to supplement the findings of fact pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). The Defendant asks the Court to supplement three findings of fact.
The Defendant’s first finding of fact states:
Being that Anthony Dozier was not found in contempt of the no-contact entered by
the State court and was not charged with harassment, he did not violate the law and
probable cause did not exist to revoke his conditional release. Such matters are at
the discretion and jurisdiction of the state.
(Doc. 80, page 3). The Defendant’s second finding of fact states:
Anthony Dozier did not receive notice of a change in his conditions of release. His
release conditions were not modified to include that if a no-contact order was
entered against him, that he would be in violation of the conditions of his release.
He was not in violation of the restraining order. He did not contact Carlin Fleck
once the order was entered. Ther was no order of contempt or violation of the order
entered by the state court.
(Doc. 80, page 4). The Defendant’s third finding of fact states:
Anthony Dozier complied with his conditions of release and made significant
improvements with his mental health. He took his prescribed mediations and
maintained employment. Dr. Autumn Clark can testify to this fact, showing he was
in compliance and did not pose a threat or danger to the person or property of
another.
Id.
The Court will deny Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Order to Supplement Findings. As
articulated above, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs the Defendant’s motion.
Nowhere within his objection to the Report and Recommendation did he raise these findings of
fact with the Court. The Defendant had an opportunity both at the March 5, 2026, hearing and had
two weeks after the United States Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to bring these
concerns to the Magistrate and/or this Court for review and failed to do so.1 Thus, the Defendant’s
Pro Se Motion for Order to Supplement Findings is DENIED.
1 The Defendant submitted his objections on March 10, 2026, the same day the Report and Recommendations were
filed. The Defendant had two weeks from March 10, 2026, to have made his objections known but chose to file his
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 4 of 9

5
III. 	Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 81)
The Defendant seeks to alter or amend the Court’s March 12, 2026, Order. The Defendant
cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) in support of his motion. The Defendant
alleges numerous basis for why the Court should alter or amend its judgment including: (1) that
he was prevented from testifying in court and presenting evidence or witnesses; (2) newly
discovered evidence will show that the Defendant was at work on October 21, 2026; (3) evidence
shows he is factually and legally innocent and sane; (4) the state court is the proper jurisdiction to
make a finding as to whether he violated the no-contact order in contempt; (5) he was denied his
First Amendment right to defend himself or advance a viable claim as protected in conjunction
with the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) the evidence provided is based solely on hearsay and
unsubstantiated claims or speculation; (7) denied equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth
Amendment on the basis of his mental illness alone and no other causation; (8) his underlying
commitment is invalid as he is competent; (9) Dr. Autumn Clark can testify that he has recovered
from his mental illness to such an extent that he does not need to be subject to § 4246; and (10) his
commitment was fundamentally unfair because he was never afforded the opportunity to defend
himself from the original complaint. (Doc. 80, pages 5-7).
As already discussed above, the Report and Recommendation as well as the Court’s March
12, 2026, Order is governed in this case by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The Defendant
was given an opportunity to be heard on March 5, 2026, and was given an opportunity to raise his
objections to the Report and Recommendations. While the Defendant did timely file his objection
to the Report and Recommendation, he failed to include any of the arguments he now wishes to
assert in altering or amending the Court’s March 12, 2026, Order. (Doc. 76). Pursuant to Federal
objection to the Report and Recommendations same day, thus waiving the fourteen-day requirement to respond and
allowing this Court to evaluate the Report and Recommendation based on the record before it.
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 5 of 9

6
Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendations and
the Defendant’s objection. This Court agreed with the Report and Recommendations, adopted it,
and found that “the evidence establishes that Defendant’s conditional release should be revoked
and that commitment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246 is appropriate.” (Doc. 77, page 2).
As the Defendant has failed to raise these objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that its March 12, 2026, was proper and will decline to alter or amend its previous judgment.
For the reasons stated, the Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED.
IV. 	Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82)
The Defendant brings his Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff lists sixteen different theories, self-
titled as defenses, why this action should be dismissed. However, in an 18 U.S.C. § 4246
proceeding, discharge from commitment is evaluated under the framework of the statute and not
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)’s pleading standards. 18 U.S.C. § 4247
governs the general provisions under Chapter 313–Offenders with Mental Disease or Defects.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) governs the procedure for discharge and states in relevant part:
Regardless of whether the director of the facility in which a person is committed
has field a certificate pursuant to the provisions of subsection (e) of section 4241,
4244, 4245, 4246, or 4248 or subsection (f) of section 4243, counsel for the person
or his legal guardian may, at any time during such person’s commitment, file with
the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether
the person should be discharged from such facility, but no such motion may be filed
within one hundred and eighty days of a court determination that the person should
continue to be committed.
18 U.S.C. § 4247(g) also states that “[n]othing contained in section 4243, 4246, or 4248 precludes
a person who is committed under either of such sections from establishing by writ of habeas corpus
the illegality of his detention.”
By statute, the Defendant may file a habeas corpus petition should he feel his commitment
is illegal by any of the reasons he states to the Courts. However, besides Defendant having his
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 6 of 9

7
counsel file for hearing to determine whether the Defendant should be discharged 180 days after
the Court’s March 12, 2026, Order, the Defendant’s options are limited regarding challenging his
commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. For these reasons, the Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Dismiss
is DENIED.
V. 	Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 83)
The Defendant seeks leave to appeal this Court’s March 12, 2026, Order adopting the
Report 	and 	Recommendation 	and 	granting 	the 	Government’s 	Motion 	for 	Revocation 	of
Conditional Release. Specifically, the Defendant lists out sixteen self-titled defenses on why he
believes this Court erred. These points on appeal range from assertions that the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted; lack of jurisdiction; that he was at work at the time
of the notice of violation underpinning the motion for revocation of conditional release; that the
Defendant is competent and has recovered from his mental illness to the point he can care for
himself.
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the decision whether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status
is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157
(8th Cir. 1983). The Court is also required to conduct a review of Plaintiff’s complaint to be filed
in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that …. (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.”).
The Court will nevertheless grant his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis as the
Defendant is a prisoner and would likely qualify financially for in forma pauperis status. Although
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 7 of 9

8
the Court doubts many of the points raised by the Defendant will ultimately be successful, he may
attempt to raise this at the appeal level. For the reasons stated, the Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for
Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.
VI. 	Motion to Appoint Counsel
The Defendant request counsel to be appointed for the purpose of appealing this Court’s
March 12, 2026, Order. The Defendant argues that the interests of justice require that he be
provided counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1)(c), (D), (E), (F) and (a)(3). The Defendant further
argues that 18 U.S.C. § 4247 requires appointment of counsel as well. Lastly, the Defendant argues
that since counsel has previously been appointed, this Court has previously determined that
Defendant qualifies for In Forma Pauperis status.2
18 U.S.C. § 30006A governs the adequate representation of defendants and states in
relevant part:
A person for whom counsel is appointed shall be represented at every state of the
proceedings from his initial appearance before the United States magistrate judge
or 	the court 	through appeal, 	including 	ancillary 	matter 	appropriate 	to 	the
proceedings. … The United States magistrate judge or the court may, in the interests
of justice, substitute one appointed counsel for another at any stage of the
proceedings.
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c) (emphasis added). Here, the Defendant has been afforded counsel in this
matter as he is being represented by Ian A. Lewis of the Federal Public Defender’s Office. As of
the date of this Order, Mr. Lewis is still the counsel on record for Defendant and may represent
him on appeal. If Mr. Lewis believes he is ill equipped to handle an appeal or would rather
withdraw from representation, it is his responsibility to seek leave to withdraw from the case. As
this case has already been noticed and transmitted to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, they are
2 The Court has not previously authorized the Defendant to proceed in forma pauperis in this action and to the extent
he tires to assert this as a ground to appoint counsel it is denied.
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 8 of 9

9
the appropriate Court to withdraw, substitute or handle any issues regarding appellate counsel.
(Docs. 86 and 87). Should Defendant seek to have a different attorney, the appropriate mechanism
would be to file a motion with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rather than this Court. For the
reasons stated, Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
VII. 	Motion to File Brief/Extension Request
Lastly, the Defendant moves for an extension of time to file a brief memorandum of points
and authorities in support of his motions. However, as the Court has already made its rulings with
respect to the Defendant’s motions, any further elaboration would be unnecessary. For the reasons
stated, the Defendant’s Motion to File Brief/Extension Request is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Pro Se Motions to Amend Findings of Fact
(Doc. 79); Motion for Order to Supplement Findings (Doc. 80); Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (Doc. 81); Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82); Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 84); and
Motion to File Brief/Extension request are DENIED.
The Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 83) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2026 	/s/ Douglas Harpool______
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:20-cv-03314-MDH Document 88 Filed 05/12/26 Page 9 of 9