State of Minnesota, ex rel. Anthony Alan Early v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections, A16-428

Anthony Early pleaded guilty in 2002 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct (sentence allegedly expired) and in 2014 was convicted (via court trial on a stipulation) of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 42 months.
DOC recommended enrollment in the prison sex-offender treatment program; Early refused in January 2015, was charged with a disciplinary violation, admitted the violation, waived a hearing, and received a 15-day extension of his release date.
Early filed a habeas petition alleging the treatment requirement and the disciplinary sanction violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because his direct appeal of the firearm conviction was pending.
The district court denied relief, reasoning Early neither claimed the privilege during disciplinary proceedings nor showed that treatment would compel incriminating disclosures about his pending firearm conviction.
This court affirmed, holding Early failed to allege facts showing a substantial, real risk that treatment would elicit incriminating information about the firearm conviction and that he did not waive his Fifth Amendment claim by admitting the disciplinary violation.

Issue	Early's Argument	Roy's Argument	Held
Waiver of Fifth Amendment claim	Early did not waive right despite admitting violation and waiving a hearing; he can raise habeas later	Roy: Early forfeited/waived by not asserting privilege at discipline and by admitting violation	Court: No waiver — coercion/administrative context means failure to assert at discipline does not bar habeas claim
Whether treatment would incriminate re: firearm conviction	Participation would require admissions that could be used against him on direct appeal of firearm conviction	Roy: Early failed to show any nexus; no reason sex-offender treatment would elicit firearm-related admissions	Court: Must plead facts showing a substantial, real risk; Early’s allegation was conclusory and inadequate
Habeas pleading/burden to make prima facie case	Early: conclusory allegation that treatment would force admissions suffices	Roy: petitioner must allege specific facts and evidence showing risk of incrimination	Court: Dismissed — petitioner must plead specific facts or evidence linking treatment to incriminating disclosures; conclusory claim insufficient
Request for categorical rule barring mandates while direct appeal pending	Early sought a rule prohibiting DOC from mandating treatment or punishing refusals whenever direct appeal pending	Roy: (opposed; argued case-specific analysis required)	Court: Declined to issue broad rule; habeas relief is fact-specific and not a vehicle for general injunctive relief

Johnson v. Fabian, 735 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 2007) (establishes "compulsion and incrimination" test for sex-offender treatment and Fifth Amendment claims in DOC context)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (Fifth Amendment privilege applies in proceedings where answers might incriminate in future prosecutions)
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013) (general rule that privilege must be claimed when relied on, but recognizes exceptions where coercion or official compulsion make forfeiture involuntary)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (discusses standard that risk of self-incrimination must be substantial and real, not speculative)