govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-02950-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
   Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Saadiq Tucker, 
 
   Respondent. 
 
 
No. 25-cv-2950 (KMM/SGE) 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Saadiq Tucker is approaching the end of  an 84-month sentence. In July 2025, the 
United States petitioned the Court for a hearing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, to determine 
Mr. Tucker’s present mental condition  and requesting an Order finding that he continues 
to suffer from a mental disease or defect  and committing him the custody of the Attorney 
General. The government seeks continued hospitalization and treatment of Mr. Tucker until 
a suitable state placement can be found or until his release would no longer constitute a 
substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of 
another, as contemplated by the statute. 
On October 22, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins held an 
evidentiary hearing. (See Dkt. 19.) Although his counsel was present, Mr.  Tucker did not 
attend the hearing. Judge Elkins determined it was appropriate to move forward because 
Mr. Tucker had been given the opportunity to be present and participate in the proceedings, 
and the evidentiary record demonstrated that postponing the hearing was unlikely to change 
the result given Mr.  Tucker’s long history of refusing to communicate with staff at the 
CASE 0:25-cv-02950-KMM-SGE     Doc. 35     Filed 06/18/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
Federal Medical Center in Rochester, to participate in treatment, or to be interviewed for 
the forensic psychological report that needed to be prepared for this proceeding. 
Following the submission of post -hearing briefing  by the parties , Judge Elkins 
issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the government’s 
petition be granted. (Dkt. 29.) Judge Elkins found that the government met its burden to 
demonstrate: (1) that Mr. Tucker is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect; 
(2) as a result of his condition, his release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury to 
another person or substantial damage to the property of another; and (3)  there is currently 
no suitable state placement available for Mr.  Tucker. Accordingly, Judge Elkins 
recommended that Mr. Tucker be committed to the custody of the Attorney General, 
pursuant to § 4246, to “hospitalize him for treatment and care in a suitable facility until a 
suitable state placement can be found, or until his release no longer poses a substantial risk 
of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. ” (Dkt. 29 
at 31.) 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §  636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), Mr. Tucker objects to 
the R&R, arguing that the government’s petition should be denied for three reasons: 
(1) it was error for the Court to proceed with the evidentiary hearing in his absence; 
(2) the government failed to carry its burden to show his release would create a 
substantial risk danger because: 
a. his violent behaviors occurred many years ago; 
b. he is “dysfunctional, but not violent”;  
c. and he would be placed on supervised release if the government’s petition 
was denied, reducing any practical risk of harm to any individual or 
property; and 
CASE 0:25-cv-02950-KMM-SGE     Doc. 35     Filed 06/18/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
(3) the government did not adequately establish that there is no suitable state 
placement available. 
 
(Dkt. 33 at 1–2, 7–10.) 
Because Mr. Tucker filed specific objections to the R&R, this Court has reviewed 
the matter de novo. 28 U.S.C. §  636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).  The Court finds no 
error in the R&R’s findings or conclusions. Under the circumstances, there was no error in 
proceeding with the evidentiary hearing in Mr. Tucker’s absence, and the Court agrees with 
Judge Elkins that a postponement would have been unlikely to result in Mr.  Tucker’s 
participation in the later hearing. 
Nor does the Court discern any error in Judge Elkins’ s conclusion that the 
government met its burden to show Mr.  Tucker’s release would present a substantial risk 
of bodily injury to another person or substantial damage to the property of another. To meet 
its burden on establishing dangerousness , the government need not present evidence of 
overt acts of violence. E.g., United States v. Dalasta, 3 F.4th 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2021) . 
As explained in the R&R, Mr. Tucker has spent most of the time in his recent placement at 
FMC Rochester in self-imposed isolation,  indicating that the absence of recent violent 
incidents is likely attributable to the fact that he is apart from others.  (Dkt. 29 at 27.) In 
fact, when he was placed with a cellmate in July 2024, he was involved in two fights with 
his cellmate within a few days.  (Id. at 17.) Mr. Tucker’s lack of insight into his mental 
illness, including his denial that he suffers from a mental illness and the risks posed by his 
behavior, further contributes to the risks of his release. ( Id. at 28.) And ultimately, t he 
CASE 0:25-cv-02950-KMM-SGE     Doc. 35     Filed 06/18/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
R&R’s conclusion is amply supported by  entire record in this proceeding, particularly by  
the risk assessment panel’s report. (Gov’t Ex. C at 15–22.) 
Finally, the Court finds no error in the R&R’s conclusion that there was no suitable 
state placement available  based on the evidence in the record. The warden at FMC 
Rochester has certified that there are no suitable arrangements for a state placement. (Gov’t 
Ex. E.) And the government has demonstrated that it made an effort to find a placement for 
Mr. Tucker in North Carolina. 
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29) is ACCEPTED; 
2. Mr. Tucker’s Objections (Dkt. 33) are OVERRULED; 
3. The Petition of the United States to Determine the Present Mental Condition of 
an Imprisoned Person Due for Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 ( Dkt. 1) is 
GRANTED; and  
4. Mr. Tucker is committed to the custody of the Attorney General, pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 4246, who shall hospitalize him for treatment and care in a suitable 
facility until a suitable state placement can be found, or until Mr. Tucker’s 
release no longer poses a substant ial risk of bodily injury to another person or 
serious damage to the property of another. 
 
Let Judgment be entered accordingly. 
 
Date: June 18, 2026      s/Katherine Menendez   
Katherine Menendez   
United States District Judge  
CASE 0:25-cv-02950-KMM-SGE     Doc. 35     Filed 06/18/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight