In re the Civil Commitment of Moen
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 78
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Moen is SDP committed in Pipestone County, 2008 commitment order to MSOP.
- Moen pleaded guilty in 2004 to three CSC offenses based on 2002–2003 incidents; concurrent sentences stayed; probation terms included jail time and long probation.
- Petition for civil commitment filed May 2008 alleging SDP and SPP; background alleged 16 additional victims 1992–2003.
- December 2008 district court issued commitment order after stipulation acknowledging likely grant of petition.
- January 2013 Moen moved for relief from the commitment order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(e) and sought appointment of counsel; asserted MSOP treatment inadequacies.
- March 2013 district court denied the 60.02(e) motion and the request for counsel; Moen appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60.02(e) relief is barred by Lonergan (exclusive remedies). | Moen contends Lonergan does not bar nontransfer, nondischarge claims. | Moen’s motion seeks relief connected to discharge/transfer; barred by Lonergan. | Yes; 60.02(e) barred by Lonergan’s exclusive-transfer/discharge framework. |
| Whether Moen’s 60.02(e) motion states a viable nontransfer, nondischarge claim. | Moen alleges MSOP treatment inadequacy as changed circumstances. | Inadequate treatment claims are not valid nontransfer, nondischarge grounds under Lonergan. | No; even if not barred, lack of viable changed-circumstances claim defeats relief. |
| Whether Moen has a statutory right to counsel for purposes of a 60.02(e) motion. | Moen argues a right to counsel under Minn. Stat. § 253B.07, subd. 2c. | Rule 60.02(e) is not a proceeding under chapter 253B; no right to counsel. | No; 60.02(e) motion is not a proceeding under chapter 253B, so no right to counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan, 811 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2012) (establishes two-pronged Lonergan bar: distinct conflict and changed-circumstances/rehabilitation goals)
- In re Navratil, 799 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. App. 2011) (adequacy of treatment outside commitment trial scope; right-to-treatment arguments premature at commitment)
- In re Travis, 767 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. App. 2009) (treatment claims potentially raiseable in civil action under 1983)
- In re Hefler, 378 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. App. 1985) (counsel right at special review board hearing; statutory reading relevant)
- Latourell v. Dempsey, 518 N.W.2d 564 (Minn. 1994) (right to counsel in proceedings under Parentage Act applied to custody determinations)
- City of Barnum v. Sabri, 657 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. App. 2003) (equity-relief under 60.02(e) requires changed circumstances; three-trial factors)
- In re Stone, 711 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. App. 2006) (elements for commitment standard; treatment not involved in trial)
- In re Coats, 633 N.W.2d 505 (Minn. 2001) (structural discussion on rule 60.02 context)
- Simons v. Schiek's Inc., 275 Minn. 132 (Minn. 1966) (abuse-of-discretion standard guidance for 60.02 timing)
- In re D.F., 828 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. App. 2013) (application of right-to-counsel in related proceedings)