McDeid v. Johnston

• Decision Date: 01 February 2023
• Docket Number: A21-0042,A21-0043
• Parties: Ricky Lee McDeid, Appellant (A21-0042), v. Nancy Johnston, CEO/Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, et al., Respondents. Shane P. Garry, Appellant (A21-0043),
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Ricky Lee McDeid, Appellant (A21-0042),
v.
Nancy Johnston, CEO/Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, et al., Respondents.

Shane P. Garry, Appellant (A21-0043),

Nos. A21-0042, A21-0043

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 1, 2023

Court of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts

Andrew J. Pieper, Bradley Prowant, Stoel Rives LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Roxanna V Gonzalez, Dorsey &Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Aaron Winter, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondents.

Teresa Nelson, Daniel R. Shulman, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.

Jennifer L. Thon, Warren J. Maas, Jones Law Office, Mankato, Minnesota, for amici curiae Civilly Committed Patients in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program on the Transfer Waiting List.

1

Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Madeline M. Ranum, Eric S. Janus, Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amici curiae Legal and Treatment Experts Michael H. Miner and Eric S. Janus.

SYLLABUS

Minnesota Sex Offender Program patients had a clearly established right to transfer to Community Preparation Services within a reasonable time following issuance of a Minnesota Commitment Appeals Panel transfer order.

Reversed and remanded.

OPINION

THISSEN, JUSTICE

Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials from liability and litigation arising out of the performance of discretionary functions or acts that result in a violation of a person's statutory or constitutional rights. The Minnesota Commitment Appeals Panel (CAP) ordered two patients in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), Ricky Lee McDeid and Shane P. Garry (collectively, the Patients), to be transferred to Community Preparation Services (CPS)-a reduction in custody. The Patients claim that the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and the Executive Director of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (collectively, State Officials) violated their due process rights by delaying transfer of the Patients to CPS for over 2 years following the CAP transfer orders and seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The State Officials seek to invoke qualified immunity against the Patients' section 1983 claims.

2

The district court concluded the Patients each sufficiently alleged a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to a transfer to CPS within a reasonable amount of time following a CAP transfer order. The district court also determined, however, that qualified immunity shields the State Officials because the right to transfer to CPS within a reasonable time of the CAP transfer orders was not clearly established when the CAP transfer orders were issued. Consequently, the district court granted the State Officials' motions to dismiss. In affirming the district court, the court of appeals assumed, without deciding, that the Patients had sufficiently alleged violations of their due process rights. But the court of appeals agreed with the district court that the right to a transfer within a reasonable time of the CAP transfer orders was not clearly established.

We reverse. We hold that the right to transfer to CPS within a reasonable time of the CAP transfer orders was clearly established when the CAP orders to transfer McDeid and Garry were issued. What amount of time is reasonable in any given set of circumstances is an issue of fact to be determined by the district court. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the court of appeals to address the question it did not address: whether the Patients sufficiently alleged violations of their due process rights.

FACTS

McDeid and Garry are both civilly committed patients in the MSOP. Several Minnesota statutes govern the commitment, treatment, and court-ordered reductions in custody of patients in the MSOP. See generally Minn. Stat. §§ 253B.01-.24 (2022) (Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act); Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01-.36 (2022)

3

(Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities); Minn. Stat. §§ 246B.01-.10 (2022) (addressing the MSOP). McDeid was committed as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality by the Aitkin County District Court on July 22, 1999. Garry was committed as a sexually dangerous person by the Rice County District Court on April 16, 2012. Persons designated as a sexually dangerous person or a sexual psychopathic personality generally are committed for treatment to an MSOP secure treatment facility for an indeterminate period of time. Minn. Stat. § 253D.07, subds. 3, 4.

The Legislature established the MSOP to "provide specialized sex offender assessment, diagnosis, care, treatment, supervision, and other services to civilly committed sex offenders." Minn. Stat. § 246B.02. Treatment is structured in phases that are mandated by statute to enable patients to progress towards discharge. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 7 (establishing the right of patients to receive treatment "rendering further supervision unnecessary"). According to the statutory mandates and the MSOP's treatment policies, patients progress through the treatment phases in part by transferring from the secure facilities at Moose Lake and St. Peter to the less restrictive environment at CPS. See id.; Minn. Stat. § 246B.01, subd. 2a ("Community preparation services are designed to assist civilly committed sex offenders in developing the appropriate skills and resources necessary for an eventual successful reintegration into a community."); Minn. Dep't of Hum. Servs., Minnesota Sex Offender Program Treatment Overview (2017), https://mn.gov/dhs/assets/msop-treatment-overview_tcm1053-313402.pdf [opinion attachment]. CPS is a residential setting outside of the secure perimeter of the facility at

4

St. Peter and is thus designated as a "reduction in custody." Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 1(b) (designating "transfer out of a secure treatment facility, a provisional discharge, or a discharge from commitment" as a "reduction in custody").

Minnesota statutes divide authority over the progress of MSOP patients through treatment. The State Officials have exclusive authority over general operational decisions and treatment decisions. See Minn. Stat. §§ 246B.01, subd. 2c, .02 (defining the roles of the Executive Director and the Commissioner); Minn. Stat. §§ 246B.03-.04 (laying out general governance rules). The CAP (called the judicial appeal panel in statute, Minn. Stat. § 253D.28) has exclusive authority over reductions in custody decisions. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 1 (establishing the judicial appeal panel (CAP)); Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 4 (vesting the exclusive authority to authorize reductions in custody in the CAP).

The legislative scheme centers a Special Review Board at the nexus of the State Officials' operational and treatment decision authority and the CAP's reduction in custody authority. See Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.04, 253B.22 (creating the Special Review Board comprised of three members that includes at least one mental health specialist and one attorney). The statute states that either the MSOP Executive Director or the patient may file a petition for a reduction in custody with the Special Review Board. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2. The Special Review Board must hold a hearing on the petition. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 3. The Special Review Board then considers whether the transfer is "appropriate" after consideration of five factors set forth in the statute: (1) "the person's clinical progress and present treatment needs"; (2) "the need for security to accomplish continuing treatment"; (3) "the need for continued institutionalization"; (4) "which facility

5

can best meet the person's needs"; and (5) "whether transfer can be accomplished with a reasonable degree of safety for the public" (collectively, Mandatory Transfer Factors). Minn. Stat. § 253D.29, subd. 1. The Special Review Board must then issue a report to the CAP recommending "denial or approval of the petition." Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 4.

The statute makes explicit that "[n]o reduction in custody . . . recommended by the [Special Review Board] is effective until it has been reviewed by the [CAP]." Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 4. The patient, Commissioner of Human Services, or certain county attorneys may petition the CAP for rehearing and reconsideration of a Special Review Board recommendation. Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(a). In that case, the CAP must hold a hearing. Id., subd. 1(b). If no petition for rehearing and reconsideration of a Special Review Board recommendation is filed, the CAP "shall either issue an order adopting the recommendations . . . or set the matter on for a hearing." Id., subd. 1(c). The party seeking a transfer to a less restrictive facility "must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer is appropriate." Id., subd. 2(e). Once again, the CAP determines whether a transfer is "appropriate" by considering the statutory Mandatory Transfer Factors. Minn. Stat. § 253D.29, subd. 1.

The CAP reviews petitions for transfer de novo. Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 3. And "[n]o order of the [CAP] granting a transfer . . . shall be made effective sooner than 15 days after it is issued." Id. A party aggrieved by a CAP order may appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Id., subd. 4 (incorporating appeal rights set forth in Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 5). "The filing of an appeal shall immediately suspend the operation

6

of any order granting transfer . . . pending the determination of the appeal." Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 5.

It is undisputed that both Patients followed all statutory procedures required of them when they petitioned for reductions...