In re the Civil Commitment of Lonergan
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 1
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Lonergan, indigently committed as an SDP, challenged the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02.
- Initial SDP commitment to MSOP followed a 2006 petition and five-day hearing, with a 60-day treatment report to be finalized.
- In 2008, this court affirmed the district court’s jurisdiction and the manner of proof and evidence in the commitment proceedings.
- A 2009 60-day review kept the SDP designation, with reports diagnosing pedophilia, polysubstance dependence, and antisocial personality disorder and recommending MSOP treatment.
- Appellant moved to vacate the commitment order under rule 60.02 roughly a year later; the district court denied without a hearing.
- The appellate court held that the SDP statutory framework precludes rule 60.02 relief and directs potential challenges to a special review board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 60.02 motion can discharge SDP commitment | Lonergan argues rule 60.02 may discharge. | State argues SDP statute precludes 60.02 discharge and directs review to special board. | No; SDP statute precludes 60.02 discharge challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Wicks, 364 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. App. 1985) (right-to-treatment generally not reviewed on commitment appeal)
- In re Pope, 351 N.W.2d 682 (Minn. App. 1984) (treatment issues before hospital review board, not committing court)
- In re Travis, 767 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. App. 2009) (treatment rights raised via treatment-facility special review board)
- In re Beaulieu, 737 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. App. 2007) (subject-matter and personal jurisdiction considerations in commitment)