In the Matter of the Civil COMMITMENT OF Kenneth Donald HAND
878 N.W.2d 503
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Hand pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct (2003) and was indeterminately committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) by a state court order in 2010.
- Hand is a member of a federal class action (Karsjens v. Jesson) in which the federal district court held parts of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act (MCTA) unconstitutional as to post-commitment procedures.
- After the federal decision, Hand moved in state court under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to vacate his 2010 indeterminate commitment order, and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and temporary injunction under Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01–.02 to stop enforcement pending resolution.
- The state district court denied Hand’s requests, citing comity and deference to the federal court overseeing the class-action remedies, and concluded the federal forum was better suited to administer relief.
- On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) comity justified deferral to the federal proceedings on continued-confinement issues; (2) a Rule 60.02 motion seeking to vacate an indeterminate commitment is precluded by the MCTA’s exclusive transfer-or-discharge remedies; and (3) Hand was not entitled to TRO or temporary injunction because he lacked a likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state court abused discretion by declining to act on Hand’s continued-confinement claims due to comity | Hand argued state court should vacate his commitment based on Karsjens holding MCTA unconstitutional | State argued federal class action is the proper forum; parallel litigation and federal court expertise counsel deference | No abuse; comity and first-to-file principle justified deferral to federal court |
| Whether Rule 60.02 may be used to vacate an SDP indeterminate-commitment order based on Karsjens | Hand argued Karsjens renders the MCTA void ab initio, so his 2010 commitment must be vacated under Rule 60.02 | State argued MCTA provides exclusive transfer/discharge remedies; Rule 60.02 cannot be used to obtain discharge or conflict with MCTA procedures | Rule 60.02 relief barred where it would seek the exclusive transfer-or-discharge remedies under MCTA |
| Whether Karsjens alters jurisdictional or legal basis for Hand’s original commitment | Hand contended Karsjens changed the law and deprived state court authority to sustain his commitment | State noted Karsjens addressed post-commitment procedures, not initial commitment, and is not final on appeal | Karsjens does not invalidate initial commitment orders and is not a final judgment entitling Rule 60.02 relief |
| Whether TRO/temporary injunction should issue to enjoin enforcement pending Rule 60.02 outcome | Hand sought immediate injunctive relief to prevent confinement pending adjudication | State argued extraordinary relief inappropriate because Hand could not show likelihood of success and status quo is confinement | Denied: injunction/TRO denied because Hand failed to show likelihood of success and relief would disrupt the status quo |
Key Cases Cited
- Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015) (federal court held aspects of MCTA post-commitment procedures unconstitutional)
- In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan, 811 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2012) (MCTA provides exclusive remedy for transfer or discharge; Rule 60.02 unavailable for those ends)
- In re Civil Commitment of Moen, 837 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. App. 2013) (standard of review and limits on Rule 60.02 relief in commitment context)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. App. 2001) (application of comity and first-to-file principles)
- Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 410 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. App. 1987) (first-to-file/comity principle in concurrent jurisdiction cases)
- Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996) (comity resolves parallel suits where parties, subject, and rights are the same)
- Jacobson v. County of Goodhue, 539 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. App. 1995) (change in decisional law may justify Rule 60.02 relief when final)
- Minneapolis Fed’n of Teachers Local 59 v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 512 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. App. 1994) (likelihood of success on the merits is a primary factor for injunctive relief)