In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: David Leroy Gamble, Jr.
A15-1980
| Minn. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2016Background
- David Gamble stipulated to civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) in Ramsey County and was indeterminately committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) in 2010.
- In June 2015 the federal district court in Karsjens found parts of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act (MCTA) unconstitutional and initiated a remedies phase; the federal court’s remedies order was stayed on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
- Gamble, a member of the Karsjens plaintiff class, moved in state court (under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(d),(e),(f)) to vacate his commitment and obtain release or transfer, and also sought a TRO and temporary injunction.
- The Ramsey County district court denied Gamble’s Rule 60.02 motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding Karsjens was nonfinal/nonbinding and that the MCTA provides the exclusive remedies for discharge/transfer.
- The state appellate court affirmed, holding Gamble’s Rule 60.02 motion sought relief barred by the MCTA’s exclusive transfer-or-discharge remedies and that the federal stay preserved the status quo.
Issues
| Issue | Gamble's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gamble can obtain discharge/transfer via Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 after Karsjens | Karsjens voided statutory authority; Rule 60.02 relief should vacate commitment and permit release | MCTA provides exclusive transfer-or-discharge remedies; Rule 60.02 cannot be used to obtain discharge | Denied — Rule 60.02 relief that would effect discharge/transfer is barred by the MCTA |
| Whether the federal Karsjens findings support judicial notice and immediate relief | Gamble sought judicial notice of Karsjens fact-findings to support vacatur and release | Karsjens is nonfinal and stayed; its fact-findings are not proper for judicial notice (not generally known or indisputable) | Denied — Karsjens is nonbinding/stayed; findings unsuitable for judicial notice |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Gamble’s Rule 60.02 motion | Gamble claimed factual dispute (present risk to public) warranting a hearing | No genuine factual dispute material to availability of Rule 60.02 relief; MCTA exclusivity dispositive | Denied — no hearing required; any error would be harmless given statutory bar |
| Whether district court abused discretion by not addressing injunctive requests (TRO/PI) | Gamble claimed irreparable harm and sought injunctive relief pending resolution | No likelihood of success on merits because Rule 60.02 cannot obtain discharge; injunctive relief therefore inappropriate | Denied — no abuse of discretion in denying TRO/PI because merits unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay of proceedings preserves status quo and suspends judicial alteration of that status quo)
- In re Commitment of Lonergan, 811 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2012) (MCTA provides exclusive remedy for discharge/transfer; Rule 60.02 cannot circumvent statutory scheme)
- In re Civil Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. App. 2016) (Karsjens class members barred from Rule 60.02 relief that conflicts with MCTA; comity considerations support denial)
- In re Civil Commitment of Moen, 837 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. App. 2013) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60.02 is abuse of discretion)
- Seifert v. Erickson, 420 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1988) (habeas petitioner entitled to evidentiary hearing only when a factual dispute is shown)
- In re Zemple, 489 N.W.2d 818 (Minn. App. 1992) (judicial notice reviewed for abuse of discretion; limits on notice to facts that are generally known or beyond reasonable dispute)
- Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015) (district court found aspects of MCTA unconstitutional but did not order immediate release of individual committed persons)