In the Matter of the CIVIL COMMITMENT OF: Brent Charles NIELSEN
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 3
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Brent Nielsen, serving life with possible parole for murder and sexual offenses, was referred by the DOC for possible civil commitment before a scheduled parole hearing.
- Ramsey County filed a petition to commit Nielsen as a Sexually Dangerous Person (SDP) and a Sexual Psychopathic Personality (SPP) under Minnesota’s MCTA (ch. 253D).
- After a DOC review panel ordered treatment conditions and deferred status change until 2017, Nielsen moved to dismiss the petition as premature and challenged jurisdiction; the district court denied the motion.
- The county attorney relied on Minn. Stat. § 253D.09(b) (authority to file a petition whenever good cause under § 253D.07 exists) to file despite Nielsen’s indeterminate life sentence.
- Nielsen attended hearings and contested service of process, arguing the commissioner of corrections (who has custody) should have been served rather than him personally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prematurity of petition / ripeness | Petition is premature while Nielsen serves an indeterminate life sentence; no precedent for filing before potential release | MCTA allows dual civil/criminal commitment; §253D.09(b) lets county attorney file when good cause exists | Petition not premature; county attorney may file any time good cause under §253D.07 exists |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction because DOC custody and treatment make civil commitment inappropriate now | MCTA vests district courts with jurisdiction to hear ch. 253D petitions | District court has subject-matter jurisdiction under §253D.07 and precedent (In re Ivey) |
| Personal jurisdiction / service | Service on Nielsen was defective; commissioner should have been served because DOC has custody | MCTA and §253B.07 require personal service on proposed patient; rules do not require service on the commissioner | Personal jurisdiction satisfied; personal service on Nielsen was proper and he attended hearings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Martenies, 350 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. App. 1984) (describing the permissibility of dual civil and criminal commitment)
- State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 1996) (court must apply unambiguous statutory language according to its plain meaning)
- In re Ivey, 687 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. App. 2004) (district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over judicial commitments under ch. 253D)
- Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis, 751 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. App. 2008) (ripeness and justiciability reviewed de novo)
- Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 731 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. App. 2007) (ripeness doctrine prevents premature adjudication)