Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

11-3659 - Karsjens et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
11-3659 - Karsjens et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al
February 6, 2012
PDF | More
AMENDED ORDER. 1.Stay of All Cases Pending Resolution of Pending Motion for ClassCertification in Civil No. 11-3659 (DWF/JJK). All current and future civil rights cases brought by an individual or group of individuals who has or have been civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program are hereby STAYED in all respects, with the exception of Civil No. 11-3659(DWF/JJK) and Civil No. 11-1704 (DWF/JJK), pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Civil No. 11-3659 (DWF/JJK), unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 2.Service. The Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is respectfully directed to provide a copy of this Order, via United States mail, to every unrepresented Plaintiff in all of the cases that are stayed. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/6/12. Associated Cases: 0:11-cv-01704-DWF-JJK, 0:11-cv-03659-DWF-JJK(GRR)
July 24, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 23(b)(2). This case is certified as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Class consists of the following: All patients currently civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253B. Gustafson Gluek PLLC shall serve as Class Counsel, and the above-named Plaintiffs shall serve as Class Representatives. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/24/2012. (BJS)
July 26, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED as follows: a. To the extent the motion seeks relief with respect to legal storage space and searches, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. b. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 175) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Unnamed Plaintiffs' Motions in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. Nos. [183-91], [195-96]) are DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/26/2012. (BJS)
December 5, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER.1. Hollis J. Larson's Motion to Intervene or to Consolidate (Doc. No. 207) is DENIED. 2. Hollis J. Larson's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 218) is DENIED. 3. Unnamed Plaintiffs' Motion to Create Sub-Class (Doc. No. 220) is DENIED. 4. Unnamed Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 222) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/4/2012. (BJS)(cc: Hollis J. Larson) Modified on 12/5/2012 (akl).
December 11, 2013
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. The ACLU and Dean Janus shall file their amicus brief on or before December 27, 2013. 2. Plaintiffs and Defendants may each file a written response to the amicus brief on or before January 3, 2014. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/11/2013. (BJS) cc: Pro Se Movants. Modified on 12/11/2013 (las).
February 20, 2014
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 374) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. With respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the motion is GRANTED. Count X of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 301) is thus DISMISSED. b. To the extent Plaintiffs may seek monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities, the motion is GRANTED. c. In all other respects, Defendants' motion is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. 360) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Provide Less Restrictive Alternative Treatment Facilities and to Re-Evaluate Class Members (Doc. No. 364) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction for the Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (Doc. No. 368) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 5. With respect to the experts appointed pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (see Doc. No. 393), the Court orders the following: a. The experts' work shall include, but shall not be limited to: i. Evaluating all class members54 and issuing reports and recommendations as to: (a) each class members current level of dangerousness (current risk assessment), including whether each class member poses a "real, continuing, and serious danger to society"; (b) whether each class member is actually eligible for discharge under the applicable statutory provisions or otherwise no longer meets the statutory criteria for initial commitment (or should otherwise be recommended for provisional or full discharge); (c) whether each class member is placed in the appropriate phase of treatment; (d) whether each class member would be a candidate for a less restrictive facility; and (e) the specific need and parameters for less restrictive alternative facilities,55 including the operation of such facilities; ii. Reviewing the current treatment program at MSOP and its implementation to determine whether the program meets professional standards of care and treatment for sex offenders and issuing recommendations as to any changes that should be made to the treatment program; and iii. Reviewing current MSOP policies and practices with regard to the conditions of confinement to determine whether they satisfy the balance between safety concerns and a therapeutic environment and making recommendations for any changes that should be made to the conditions of confinement at both the Moose Lake and St. Peter facility. iv. The experts shall also report to the Court on the following: (a) the current professional standards for the treatment of civilly committed sex offenders and the extent to which MSOP's program design reflects those standards; (b) how other civil commitment programs have reintegrated civilly committed sex offenders into the community, with particular attention to community relations; and (c) how other states, if any, are providing treatment and management of lower-functioning civilly committed sex offenders in community settings. b. The experts' work shall begin with, but will in no way be limited to, the following: i. Reviewing MSOP treatment and screening program/process; ii. Conducting site visits to St. Peter and Moose Lake and interviewing patients and staff at each facility; iii. Reviewing 20% to 25% of resident charts, with the aim of reviewing 100% of charts for those individuals in the Assisted Living Unit, the Alternative Program Units, and the Young Adult Unit; and iv. Identifying residents who are not receiving appropriate services and making recommendations related thereto. c. In conducting their work, the experts shall have complete and unrestricted access to documents they may require, including the reference documents and MSOP policy documents set forth above as well as patient files and clinical documents. d. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, and in the format requested by the experts, Defendants shall provide the experts with all of the reference documents and MSOP policies and procedures requested by the experts. (See Doc. No. 422.) e. DHS, and all officials, staff, consultants, and contractors for DHS, are directed to provide the appointed experts with full and complete access to all residents and staff as well as all relevant information, documents, and records requested by the experts. Such access shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: i. Access to all patient files and related documentation; ii. Access to meet with, interview, or otherwise communicate with MSOP patients; iii. Access to all MSOP policymakers as well as all policies and related documentation; iv. Access to review the current conditions of confinement at MSOP and related policies and rules; v. Access to review all aspects of the current treatment program provided by MSOP; and vi. Access to privately meet with, interview, or otherwise communicate with DHS officials, staff, consultants, and contractors for DHS. vii. DHS shall also create and provide any aggregation or analysis of data requested by the appointed experts. f. In conducting their work, the experts may call upon the MPET members previously appointed by the Court (see Doc. No. 281) as well as Roberta Opheim, Minnesota State Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, as necessary. g. The experts may convene meetings, confer with relevant individuals and groups, attend case-related court proceedings, and review all documents submitted to the Court. The parties shall henceforth serve the experts with all such papers. h. The experts shall have ex parte access to the Court and its Technical Advisor for logistical and organizational purposes, subject to the limitations of Rule 706. i. To facilitate the integrity and effectiveness of the experts work, their communications with one another and work product (such as draft documents, correspondence, e-mails, and conversations) shall be privileged, confidential, and not admissible. j. The experts' work will be overseen and coordinated by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes, with the assistance of the Court's Technical Advisor. k. The parties shall meet and confer, facilitated by the Court's Technical Advisor if necessary, to establish an interim budget deposit for the experts and a mechanism for payment. Without prejudice to subsequent adjustment, such costs shall be initially allocated to Defendants. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/19/2014. (BJS)
June 2, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Written Opinion): Show Cause Hearing set for 6/25/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7C (STP) before Judge Donovan W. Frank. Show Cause Response due by 6/11/2014. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/2/14. (kt) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/2/2014: # (1) SEALED Exhibit) (kt).
July 10, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER DEFINING THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE JULY 14 & 15, 2014 EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 1. Defendants' Motion in Limine for an Order Defining the Purpose and Scope of the July 14 & 15, 2014 Evidentiary Hearing (Karsjens, Civ. No. 11-3659, Doc. No. 541), is GRANTED IN PART. The evidentiary hearing scheduled for July 14 and 15, 2014, is limited in scope to evidence relating to the opinions of all individuals, including the Rule 706 experts, who have issued reports or filed affidavits on E.T. and R.B in relation to the Karsjens § 1983 action. The evidence received at this hearing can be used, if relevant, to evaluate the class action claims in the Karsjens § 1983 action. The Court reserves the right to preserve the evidence insofar as it may pertain to the habeas matters. 2. Following the testimony as described in paragraph 1, the Court will hear argument from counsel in the Karsjens § 1983 action on Plaintiffs Motion for the Creation of an Aftercare Plan for E.T. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253D.35 (Doc. No. 526), and separately will hear argument from the parties on the two habeas petitions in Civ. No. 14-2002 and Civ. No. 14-2362, including any argument on the exhaustion issues. 3. At the hearing, the Court would also like an update from counsel regarding E.T.'s July 2, 2014 SRB hearing, and an update on the current status of E.T. and R.B.s residence and living situation. Counsel should also be prepared to discuss modifying the schedule in the Karsjens § 1983 action. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/10/2014. (BJS)
August 11, 2014
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment and to Immediately Discharge E.T. from Civil Commitment (Doc. No. 469) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for the Creation of an Aftercare Plan for E.T. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253D.35 (Doc. No. 526) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Declaratory Judgment and to Immediately Transfer R.B. to an Appropriate Treatment Facility (Doc. No. 578) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 4. Eric Terhaar's federal habeas case (Civ. No. 14-2002 (DWF/JJK)) is STAYED; 5. Rhonda Bailey's federal habeas case (Civ. No. 14-2362 (DWF/JJK)) is STAYED; 6. The parties shall meet with the Court on August 21, 2014, as previously scheduled (see Doc. No. 566), to discuss moving the trial date in this case to a date in 2014. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/11/2014. (BJS)
September 9, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' request for a jury trial for Phase One 589 is DENIED and Plaintiffs' request for a bench trial for Phase One 590 is GRANTED. (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 09/09/2014. (RLB)
December 1, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. Defendants' objections (Doc. No. 650) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J.Keyes's October 28, 2014 Order are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's October 28, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 636) is AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/01/2014. (BJS)
January 13, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. Defendants' objections (Doc. No. 730) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's December 15, 2014 Orders are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's December 15, 2014 Text Only Order (Doc. No. 706) and Minute Entry (Doc. No. 705) are AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/13/2015. (BJS)
February 2, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 651) is DENIED. 2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 719) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/2/2015. (BJS)
February 5, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence Relating to any Class Member's Sexual Offenses Prior to his or her Civil Commitment or Evidence Related to any Class Member's Civil Commitment Proceeding (Doc. No. 798) is DENIED. Such evidence is presumptively admissible subject to the Court's analysis of Article 4 and Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting the Court to Take Judicial Notice of Documents Pertinent to this Matter (Doc. No. 803) is DENIED under Rule 201. However, the following evidence is presumptively admissible pursuant to the Court's Rule 702, Rule 703, Rule 807, Rule 403, and Rule 102 analysis, subject to any objections that Defendants may raise at trial: (i) the State of Minnesota's Office of the Legislative Auditor's March 2011 Evaluation Report ("OLA Report"); (ii) the MSOP Program Evaluation Teams February 2013 Report ("MPET Report"); and (iii) the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force's December 2012 and December 2013 Reports ("Task Force Reports"). To the extent either party believes any of the remaining evidence referenced in Plaintiffs' motion is admissible notwithstanding the Court's ruling, the Court reserves the right to revisit the issue of the admissibility of such evidence at or before trial. (See Order for additional information.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/5/2015. (BJS)
April 24, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, XI, XII, and XIII of the Third Amended Complaint Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 925). 2. Pursuant to Rule 62.1, the Court indicates that it will partially grant Plaintiffs' motion and dismiss Counts IV, XI, XII, and XIII with prejudice upon remand. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/24/2015. (BJS)
June 17, 2015
PDF | More
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief with respect to Counts I and II of their Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 635) is GRANTED. 2. The parties shall participate in a Remedies Phase pre-hearing conference on August 10, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the relief that they find appropriate with respect to both Counts I and II, in light of the above requirements and recommendations. In addition to counsel for the parties, the Court urges the following individuals to be present and participate in the pre-hearing conference: Governor Mark B. Dayton; Representative Kurt L. Daudt (Speaker of the House); Senator Thomas M. Bakk (Majority Leader of the Senate); Attorney General Lori Swanson; Commissioner Lucinda E. Jesson; Deputy Commissioner Anne M. Barry; Robin Vue Benson (DHS attorney); Jannine Hbert; Nancy Johnston; former Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson (Chair of the Task Force); former Chief Judge James M. Rosenbaum (Vice Chair of the Task Force); the Honorable Joanne M. Smith (Task Force Member); Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections Tom Roy (Task Force Member); Eric S. Janus (Dean of William Mitchell College of Law and Task Force Member); Kelly Lyn Mitchell (Executive Director of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and Task Force Member); Mark A. Ostrem (Olmstead County Attorney and Task Force Member); Ryan B. Magnus (defense attorney and Task Force Member); John Kirwin (Assistant Hennepin County Attorney); and Donna Dunn (Executive Director of the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Task Force Member).14 The conference will be presided over by the undersigned, along with United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes. The conference will take place in the 7th Floor Conference Room, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3. Counts VIII, IX, and X, will be tried in the second phase of trial ("Phase Two"). Phase Two will be addressed at the Remedies Phase pre-hearing conference on August 10, 2015. 4. Counts IV, XI, XII, and XIII will be addressed under separate Order. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/15/2015. (BJS)
June 17, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. The Court intends to grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, XI, XII, and XIII of the Third Amended Complaint Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 925) on the condition that the motion be dismissed with prejudice. 2. Plaintiffs may refuse the Court's Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal condition and withdraw their motion on or before June 26, 2015. Failure to timely withdraw the motion shall constitute a binding election to accept the condition of dismissal with prejudice. 3. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), if the Rule 41(a)(2) motion is not withdrawn, the Court will hold a fairness hearing on the dismissal of Counts IV, XI, XII, and XIII on August 10, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 7C, 7th Floor, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. 4. Counsel for Plaintiffs is directed to give notice of the hearing and the proposed dismissal to the class members by mail on or before July 20, 2015. The parties shall negotiate the content of the class notice and shall submit a joint proposed notice to the Court on or before July 8, 2015. If the parties are unable to agree on the content of the notice, the parties shall each submit a proposed notice, together with briefing not to exceed ten pages per party, on or before July 13, 2015.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/17/2015. (BJS)
July 22, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants' request for certification of appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or, alternatively, Rule 54(b) (Doc. No. 973) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/22/2015. (BJS)
July 29, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. The August 10, 2015 conference will take place in the Fifth Floor Conference Room, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. 2. Similar to other Rule 16 scheduling conferences, and to plan and discuss pending issues, the August 10, 2015 conference will be closed to the public to allow the Court to hear and assess remedy proposals in advance of the public Remedies Phase hearing. 3. The August 10, 2015 conference will be presided over by the undersigned, United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes, and former Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson, who will be serving as Special Master in a pro bono capacity to oversee the injunctive relief imposed by the Court with respect to Counts I and II. 4. Following the August 10, 2015 conference, the Court will establish a schedule regarding next steps in this proceeding. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/29/2015. (BJS)
August 7, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. The News Organizations' motion (Doc. No. 996) is DENIED, consistent with the terms of this Order. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/7/2015. (BJS)
August 12, 2015
PDF | More
SCHEDULING ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs shall file their remedy proposals and their supporting brief with the Court no later than August 20, 2015. 2. Defendants shall file their remedy proposals and their supporting brief with the Court no later than September 21, 2015. 3. Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief with the Court no later than September 25, 2015. 4. The Court shall hear arguments from the parties on their remedy proposals on September 30, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 7C, 7th Floor, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. 5. It would be in the best interests of everyone, including the public at large, if the State of Minnesota began preparing now to solve the previously determined and identified constitutional infirmities in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP") and its corresponding statutory scheme. The Court has previously identified a variety of specific measures for Defendants to implement in order to remedy the constitutional deficiencies at the heart of this case in a way that will protect and promote public safety and the civil commitment and criminal justice systems operation. For example, the state could: (i) create assessment teams and enter contracts to provide independent, periodic risk assessments; (ii) develop transitional services; (iii) establish facilities to be used for less restrictive alternative options; and (iv) design a statewide public education plan on civil commitment, alternative facilities, provisional discharge conditions, and risk of re-offense data, as much of the information that is being stated publicly is either inaccurate, unfounded, or misleading. Recognizing the history of the states failure to meet minimum constitutional requirements, as well as the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious violations, the Court notes that, at some point, if the state proves unwilling or incapable of remedying the constitutional violations, to which insufficient funding is not a defense, that failure may demand a more forceful solution. Any delay by the state to prepare for the inevitable relief to be imposed by the Court in light of the previously determined constitutional violations would only increase the risk to public safety. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/12/2015. (BJS)
October 29, 2015
PDF | More
FIRST INTERIM RELIEF ORDER. 1. Defendants are hereby enjoined as follows: a. Defendants must promptly conduct independent risk and phase placement reevaluation of all current patients at the MSOP. These independent risk assessments shall determine whether each patient (1) continues to meet the constitutional standard for commitment as set forth in Call v. Gomez, 535 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1995); (2) could be appropriately transferred or provisionally discharged; (3) could be housed in or monitored by a less restrictive alternative; and (4) is in the proper treatment phase. Defendants must complete these assessments according to the following time lines: i. Within 30 days, Defendants shall complete reevaluations of the six individuals in the Alternative Program who were designated for transfer to Cambridge, Eric Terhaar, and Rhonda Bailey. ii. Within 30 days, Defendants shall submit a detailed plan for approval by the Special Master for the reevaluations of the elderly, individuals with substantive physical or intellectual disabilities, and juvenile-only offenders. The plan must identify the individuals who will be reevaluated, the independent evaluators who will conduct the evaluations, and a detailed schedule for these reevaluations to be completed by a presumptive deadline of April 1, 2016, subject to modification by the Court based on the recommendations of the Special Master taking into account any submissions of the parties. iii. Within 60 days, Defendants shall submit a detailed plan for approval by the Special Master for the reevaluations of all remaining individuals at the MSOP. The presumptive completion deadline for these reevaluations is December 31, 2017, subject to modification by the Court based on the recommendations of the Special Master taking into account any submissions of the parties. b. If the independent risk assessment for any patient concludes that the patient should be fully discharged, transferred, or receive a reduction in custody, the MSOP must seek the release or reduction in custody of that patient to the appropriate placement by immediately filing a petition with the Special Review Board. See Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2. Should Defendants wish to challenge the finding that a patient should be fully discharged, transferred, or receive a reduction in custody, the burden shall be on Defendants to prove that such individual's commitment and/or current level of custody is appropriate by clear and convincing evidence. See Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 2(d). Defendants must provide access to experienced independent counsel and professional experts to all petitioners. Defendants must ensure that the Special Review Board and Supreme Court Appeal Panel hearings following the independent risk assessments proceed in a timely manner and in no case conclude more than 120 days after the petition has been filed on behalf of a patient. c. Defendants must ensure that less restrictive alternatives are available to accommodate all individuals found eligible for a reduction in custody. For individuals found eligible for discharge, Defendants must provide transitional services and discharge planning needed to facilitate the individual's successful transition into the community. d. Following each treatment phase placement reevaluation identified in part a., above, Defendants shall immediately move any individual who is determined to be in an improper treatment phase into the proper treatment phase. If Defendanissue an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/28/2015. (BJS) Modified text on 10/29/2015 (JDF).ts wish to object to the movement of any individual, the matter must be submitted to the Special Master for resolution. e. Defendants shall establish a plan to conduct annual, independent risk assessments to determine whether each client still satisfies the civil commitment requirements and whether each client's treatment phase placement is proper. Parts b., c., and d. shall apply equally to the results of these subsequent annual assessments. f. Within 30 days, Defendants must submit a plan to the Special Master for approval by the Court providing for how they will complete the actions identified in parts b., c., and d., and e., above. Should Defendants seek an alternate deadline, they must prove to the Court why a later deadline is proper. 2. Special Master former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson shall have authority to monitor compliance with the remedies identified above. The Special Master shall also have the authority to implement and enforce the injunctive relief imposed by the Court and to mediate any dispute between the parties with regard to the implementation of the remedies. Mediation of disputes by the Special Master shall be binding upon the parties. 3. This First Interim Relief Order contemplates that the Court will order further specific relief against Defendants. Subsequent orders by this Court may require Defendants to make improvements to the MSOP's treatment structure and discharge process, to conduct training for MSOP employees on the constitutional standards for commitment, to require periodic evaluation of the MSOP's treatment program by external experts, or to develop a statewide public education campaign to educate the public about Minnesota's sex offender civil commitment scheme, among other things. The Court may also revisit the relief ordered above in the event that Defendants fail to act on these requirements. 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for 5 years from the date of final judgment, unless the Court orders otherwise. 5. If Defendants fail to fully comply with this Order, the Court reserves the right to issue an injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Act and precluding civil commitments under the Act and to
November 23, 2015
PDF | More
to be effective from the date of this Order. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/23/2015. (BJS)ORDER. 1. Defendants' Motion to Stay or Suspend the Court's October 29, 2015 Order Pending Appeal (Doc. No. 1037) is DENIED. 2. All deadlines imposed in the Court's First Interim Relief Order, (Doc. No. 1035 at 39-42), are modified
May 3, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. This matter is STAYED in its entirety. 2. The parties shall meet and confer to discuss the status of the case and contact the Court to arrange a telephone status conference within ninety days of this order. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/3/2017. (BJS)