DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. 360), Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Provide Less Restrictive Alternative Treatment Facilities and to Re-Evaluate Class Members (Doc. No. 364), Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction for the Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (Doc. No. 368), and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 374). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss only with respect to Count X and denies Defendants' motion in all other respects; the Court denies Plaintiffs' motions without prejudice at this early stage of the proceedings.
The fourteen named Plaintiffs in this matter are all civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP"). According to Plaintiffs, "MSOP is intended to be a treatment facility," and "[a]ll persons civilly committed as SPP
In March 2011, the Office of the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota ("OLA") issued an Evaluation Report on the Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders. (Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, Evaluation Report: Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders (2011) ("OLA Report"), available at http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/ccso.pdf.) Plaintiffs' Complaint relies heavily on the findings of the OLA Report. (See generally Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57-209.) The summary of the findings of the OLA included that: "Minnesota's population of civilly committed sex offenders has grown significantly in the last decade and is the highest in the nation on a per capita basis"
On July 24, 2012, this Court certified a class in this matter pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consisting of "[a]ll patients currently civilly committed" to MSOP (together, "Plaintiffs" or the "class members"). 283 F.R.D. 514, 520 (D.Minn.2012). The Court appointed the fourteen named Plaintiffs to serve as class representatives. (Id. at 520.)
On August 15, 2012, the Court ordered that the Minnesota Department of Human Services ("DHS") Commissioner, Lucinda Jesson, create a Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force (the "Task Force") to "examine and provide recommended legislative proposals to the Commissioner" on each of the following topics: (1) "[t]he civil commitment and referral process for sex offenders"; (2) "[s]ex offender civil commitment options that are less restrictive than placement in a secure treatment facility"; and (3) "[t]he standards and processes for the reduction in custody for civilly committed sex offenders." (Doc. No. 208 at 2.) The Task Force issued its final recommendations on December 2, 2013. (Sex Offender Commitment Advisory Task Force, Final Report (2013) ("Task Force Report"), available at https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Public/DHS-6641B-ENG.).
On November 9, 2012, the Court ordered Commissioner Jesson to create an MSOP Program Evaluation Team ("MPET" or the "Evaluation Team") to "review the treatment records of clients who have been participating for at least 36 months in a treatment phase and who have not yet advanced to the next treatment phase." (Doc. No. 275 ¶ 3.) The Evaluation Team was further tasked with determining "the need, scope, and frequency of any future MSOP treatment program evaluation." (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court appointed five individuals to serve as MPET members on December 13, 2012. (Doc. No. 281 at 2.) The Evaluation Team filed its Report with the Court on April 26, 2013. (Doc. No. 294-1, Report on the Evaluation of Treatment Phase Progression at the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program (MSOP) ("MPET Report").)
The parties engaged in settlement negotiations throughout 2012 and 2013 without result.
On August 1, 2013, DHS issued a request for proposals for the development of "less restrictive but highly supervised placements for individuals who would be provisionally discharged after having been initially committed to a secure treatment facility." (Doc. No. 387, Jesson Aff. ¶ 16, Ex. C; see Doc. No. 367, Gustafson Aff. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)
On September 12, 2013, Commissioner Jesson sent a letter to state legislators identifying "a small group of [MSOP] clients who are low functioning and could be transferred to an existing DHS site" in Cambridge, Minnesota, which she expected "to become available in the spring of 2014 for use by MSOP later in 2014." (See Doc. No. 341 at 2 (quoting Jesson letter).)
On November 13, 2013, Governor Mark Dayton directed that Commissioner Jesson "oppose any future petitions by sexual offenders for provisional release" and "suspend [DHS's] plans to transfer any sexual offenders to other tightly supervised facilities, such as Cambridge," until after the following conditions have been met:
(Doc. No. 371 ("Gustafson Aff. II") ¶ 4, Ex. B at 2-3; Jesson Aff. ¶ 19, Ex. D ("Dayton Letter") at 2-3.)
On December 6, 2013, the Court appointed four experts pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Doc. No. 393 at 1-2.) Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective proposals with respect to the work of the experts. (Doc. No. 421.) On January 22, 2014, the Court met with the experts, and on February 5, 2014, the Court received the experts' proposed plan of action. (Doc. No. 422.) The Court will address the responsibilities of the experts below.
Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts the following thirteen counts against Defendants: (1) Failure to Provide Treatment in Violation
Defendants now move to dismiss, and Plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief.
Defendants move for the dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 374 at 1-2.) Defendants assert that, because Plaintiffs have failed to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 2.)
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court assumes all facts in the complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the complainant. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). In doing so, however, a court need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.1999), or legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts alleged. Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990). A court may consider the complaint, matters of public record, orders, materials embraced by the complaint, and exhibits attached to the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1999).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must contain facts with enough specificity "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. As the United States Supreme Court recently
The Court evaluates each of Plaintiffs' thirteen claims in turn below.
At the heart of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this action is the contention that Minnesota's civil commitment scheme for sex offenders constitutes a punitive system of preventive detention in violation of the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs assert several substantive due process claims in that regard. Repeatedly throughout their Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that due process requires "that the conditions and duration of confinement have some reasonable relation to the purpose for which persons are committed," and that, while "[c]ivilly committed persons may be subjected to liberty restrictions reasonably related to legitimate government objectives," those restrictions must not be "tantamount to punishment as determined by reasonable professional judgment." (E.g., Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 228, 250.) Plaintiffs maintain that "[c]onfinement that continues after the person no longer meets the statutory requirements for commitment violates due process." (E.g., id. ¶ 250.).
With respect to Counts III, IV, and V, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying Plaintiffs their substantive due process rights to less restrictive alternative confinement and to be free from punishment and inhumane treatment. Count IX sets forth Plaintiffs' claim that the commitment statutes are unconstitutional as applied.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]" U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. "[T]he Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S.Ct. 975,
The Supreme Court has made clear that civil commitment of individuals "who, by reason of a mental disease or mental abnormality, constitute a real, continuing, and serious danger to society," is permitted, "provided there is no object or purpose to punish." Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 372, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426-27, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979)); see also Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 373, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("We should bear in mind that while incapacitation is a goal common to both the criminal and civil systems of confinement,
Furthermore, "[d]ue process requires that the nature of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed." Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 79, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972). In Minnesota, as provided by statute, individuals are committed to MSOP for the purpose of treatment as SDPs and SPPs and have the right "to receive proper care and treatment, best adapted, according to contemporary professional standards, to rendering further supervision unnecessary." Minn.Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 7; see also Minn.Stat. § 253D.02, subds. 15 & 16 (defining SPP and SDP).
With respect to the duration of a civil commitment, "the Constitution permits the Government ... to confine [an individual] to a mental institution until such time as he has regained his sanity or is no longer a danger to himself or society." Jones, 463 U.S. at 370, 103 S.Ct. 3043. Thus, a civilly committed individual is entitled to release when he is no longer mentally ill or dangerous. See Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77-78, 112 S.Ct. 1780.
Defendants contend that Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001), defeats Plaintiffs' claim that the civil commitment statutes are unconstitutional as applied because the Supreme Court, in Seling, rejected an as-applied challenge to a civil commitment statute. Unlike Seling, however, this case raises the question of the constitutionality of a state civil commitment scheme as applied to the entire sex offender population, not just to one individual.
At the center of Plaintiffs' challenge to the Minnesota sex offender commitment scheme is the allegation that a commitment to MSOP essentially amounts to lifelong confinement, equivalent to a lifetime of criminal incarceration in a facility resembling, and run like, a medium to high security prison. Under such conditions, and assuming the allegations in the Complaint to be true, it appears that MSOP may very well be serving the constitutionally impermissible purposes of retribution and deterrence. Documents such as the OLA Report, combined with the Governor's directive that no class members be released, as well as Defendants' admission that no one has been fully discharged since the program's inception, lend substantial support to Plaintiffs' Complaint.
If, with the benefit of discovery (including reports by the Court-appointed experts), Plaintiffs are able to demonstrate that the commitment statutes are systematically applied in such a way as to indefinitely commit individual class members who are no longer dangerous, or that MSOP is administered as a punitive system despite its statutory treatment purpose, Plaintiffs will likely prove up their claims. The Court thus concludes, as did Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes in Thompson, that if Plaintiffs "can show that, contrary to the purpose of the SDP/SPP commitment law, the nature of [their] commitment is punitive incarceration without any meaningful opportunity for release, then [they have] a plausible claim that [their] fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment has been violated by arbitrary government action." Thompson R & R at 59.
Plaintiffs have plainly asserted, and sufficiently pled, viable claims regarding the punitive nature of their confinement. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants' motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of
Counts I, II, and XI of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint assert various claims related to the right to treatment.
Count I, in essence, alleges that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to treatment. In particular, Plaintiffs claim that "[b]ased on the policy and procedures created and implemented by Defendants," Plaintiffs "spend no more than six or seven hours per week in treatment, their treatment plans are not detailed and individualized, the treatment staff is not qualified to treat sex offenders, and staffing levels are often far too low."
Defendants maintain that the proper legal standard to apply to Plaintiffs' inadequate treatment claim is whether "Defendants' treatment program is so arbitrary or egregious as to shock the conscience." (Doc. No. 376 at 22); see Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2012). It is true that the Eighth Circuit concluded in Strutton that the plaintiff "[did] not have a fundamental due process right to sex offender treatment" and that, accordingly, the Youngberg "professional judgment" standard
Prior to Strutton, the Eighth Circuit applied the Youngberg professional judgment standard to a sex offender's right to treatment claims. See Bailey v. Gardebring, 940 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (8th Cir.1991). In Bailey, the Eighth Circuit determined that the plaintiff could succeed on his claim only if he could "show that the `presumptively valid' decision of the hospital psychiatrists not to provide the sort of treatment" sought by the plaintiff was "`such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.'" Id. at 1154 n. 4 (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323, 102 S.Ct. 2452). Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit affirmed
While the Court need not decide the applicable standard for Plaintiffs' right to treatment claims (or whether a fundamental right is implicated here) at this juncture, the Court concludes that, regardless of the applicable standard, at this early stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs have, at a minimum, alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ("So-called `substantive due process' prevents the government from engaging in conduct that `shocks the conscience,' ... or interferes with rights `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'") (quoting Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952) and Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-26, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937)). Even assuming, without deciding, that the Strutton "shocks the conscience" standard applies to Plaintiffs' right to treatment claims, when taken together with the allegations regarding the punitive nature of confinement and the lack of meaningful opportunity for release, Plaintiffs have, at a minimum, raised a serious question as to whether state action with respect to the class members committed to MSOP is "truly egregious and extraordinary." See Strutton, 668 F.3d at 557.
Indeed, when taken together, and if proven true, a fact-finder may very well conclude that the conditions of Plaintiffs' confinement, including the deficiencies in treatment, rise to the level of "shocking the conscience." See Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 643 (8th Cir.2002) ("Whether a substantive due process right exists is a question of law.... However, subject to certain presumptions, whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to support a claimed violation of a substantive due process right is a question for the fact-finder, here the jury."). As such, at this early stage, the Court finds that Count I states a valid due process claim for failure to provide treatment.
To the extent Plaintiffs assert that any inadequate treatment or failure to treat amounts to a violation of Minnesota statute or court order in Counts II and XI, Plaintiffs' claims also survive dismissal for similar reasons.
Count II alleges a state law violation of the right to treatment. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have unreasonably failed to provide the class members with "proper care and treatment, best adapted, according to contemporary professional standards, to rendering future supervision unnecessary" in contravention of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 222 (quoting Minn.Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 7).)
The Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act guarantees civilly committed individuals a right to treatment consistent with contemporary professional standards.
Similarly, Count XI asserts that Plaintiffs "are not receiving adequate treatment," contrary to the judicial determination that, as SPPs or SDPs, they "must enter a secure treatment facility" for the purpose of receiving "proper sex offender treatment." (See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 300-01.).
While Count I is framed as a substantive due process claim, Counts II and XI expand upon Plaintiffs' underlying right to treatment claim. Plaintiffs support all three claims with the same fundamental factual allegations. With respect to those counts, the Complaint essentially alleges a pervasive denial of proper treatment at MSOP — that what purports to be "treatment" by Defendants is, for all intents and purposes, a sham. Plaintiffs allege that such a systemic failure is not only inconsistent with due process, but is also contrary to statutory standards (and corresponding judicial orders) governing civil commitment. Noting the concerns raised by the OLA Report, as well as the MPET Report and the Task Force recommendations, and taking the allegations in the Complaint as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, at a minimum, Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims pertaining to inadequate treatment. As such, Counts I, II, and XI survive dismissal, and the class members must be provided the opportunity to offer evidentiary support for those claims.
In Count X, Plaintiffs assert that the sex offender commitment statutes, as applied, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 292-98.) Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that "significant geographic variations in petition and commitment rates across the state" demonstrate that similarly situated individuals are treated differently, without a rational basis for such disparate treatment. (See id. ¶¶ 296-97; see also OLA Report at xi ("Among Minnesota's judicial districts, commitment rates vary significantly, with the percentage of referred offenders being committed varying from 34 to 67 percent.").)
To state an actionable equal protection claim, Plaintiffs must allege facts to show that they have been treated differently from similarly situated individuals. See Bogren v. Minnesota, 236 F.3d 399, 408 (8th Cir.2000); Klinger v. Dep't of Corr., 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir.1994) (stating that to sustain an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must show that he belongs to a group that had been treated less favorably than others who are "similarly situated"); see also Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 815 (8th Cir. 2008) ("In order to establish such an equal protection claim, a prisoner must show that he is treated differently from similarly-situated inmates and that the different treatment is based upon either a suspect classification or a `fundamental right.'"); Beaulieu v. Ludeman, Civ. No. 07-1535, 2008 WL 2498241, at *12 (D.Minn. June 18, 2008) ("Absent a threshold showing
If the parties are similarly situated, and the alleged action infringes a fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies. See, e.g., Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1089 (8th Cir.1997) ("Legislation that employs a suspect classification or impinges on a fundamental constitutional right merits stricter scrutiny and will survive only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest."). But see, e.g., Devoil-El v. Groose, 160 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir.1998) (noting that when a suspect classification (such as race) is implicated, "disparate impact alone, without the showing of intent to discriminate, will not trigger the strictest level of scrutiny"). If the alleged action does not impinge on a fundamental right or employ a suspect classification, rational basis review applies. See, e.g., Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1090 ("Because neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification is at issue here, we apply rational basis review and accord the immediate termination provisions `a strong presumption of validity.'").
Here, Plaintiffs claim to have suffered an injury "because they have been committed while others with similar offenses and similar records have not, without any rational basis for this disparity." (Doc. No. 389 at 37.) Defendants, meanwhile, contend that Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their equal protection claim.
Plaintiffs' equal protection claim appears to challenge the initial decision to pursue civil commitment — typically made by the appropriate county attorney's office, which files the petition for civil commitment in state district court — of each of the class members, as compared to the decision not to pursue commitment of other individuals. Plaintiffs do not allege, however, that the named Defendants
In Counts VI and VII, respectively, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have denied Plaintiffs their right to religious freedom and have unreasonably restricted Plaintiffs' freedoms of speech and association in violation of the First Amendment.
Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims are governed by the guidelines set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). (See Doc. No. 376 at 6-7); see also Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254 ("[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."). Plaintiffs dispute the applicability of Turner (which applies to claims asserted by prisoners), and argue for the modification of that standard as follows: that any First Amendment restrictions on civilly committed individuals "must be reasonably related to `legitimate therapeutic or institutional interests.'" (Doc. No. 389 at 29 (quoting Ivey v. Mooney, Civ. No. 05-2666, 2008 WL 4527792, at *10 (D.Minn. Sept. 30, 2008)).) While the Court need not conclusively resolve the issue of the precise, applicable standard today, the Court considers each of Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims in light of appropriate therapeutic interests as well as relevant safety and security concerns. Ivey, 2008 WL 4527792, at *4-5 (applying "a version of the Turner test, moderated to account for the principles stated in Senty-Haugen" in order to determine whether an MSOP policy "is reasonably related to legitimate institutional and therapeutic interests"); see Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 886 (8th Cir.2006) (acknowledging that the liberty interests of individuals committed to state custody as dangerous persons "are considerably less than those held by members of free society," but that such individuals are "entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement" than prison inmates) (internal citations omitted); Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir.2004) ("Although an involuntarily committed patient of a state hospital is not a prisoner per se, his confinement is subject to the same safety and security concerns as that of a prisoner."); Serna v. Goodno, 567 F.3d 944, 953 (8th Cir.2009), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 972, 130 S.Ct. 465, 175 L.Ed.2d 312 (2009) (finding that "governmental interests in running a state mental hospital are similar in material aspects to that of running a prison" because "[a]dministrators have a vital interest in ensuring the safety of their staff, other patients, and of course in ensuring the patients' own safety" and concluding, therefore, that "the government may take steps to maintain security at its institutions where sexually violent persons are confined"). But see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1039 (8th Cir.2012) (applying the four-factor Turner test to a First Amendment claim asserted by civilly committed sex offenders where the parties agreed to its application).
In order to succeed on a claim asserted under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Plaintiffs must ultimately establish that the challenged regulations place a "substantial burden" on Plaintiffs' ability to practice their religions. See Patel, 515 F.3d at 813; Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.1997) ("[A] person claiming that a governmental policy or action violates his right to exercise his religion freely must establish that the action substantially burdens his sincerely held religious belief."). To substantially burden one's free exercise of religion, a regulation must: (1) "significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of a person's individual religious beliefs"; (2) "meaningfully curtail a person's ability to express adherence to his or her faith"; or (3) "deny a person reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are fundamental to a person's religion." Patel, 515 F.3d at 813 (quoting Murphy v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 988 (8th Cir.2004)).
Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs have failed to plead an actionable freedom of religion claim because Plaintiffs have not identified specific instances in which any class member's "sincerely held religious belief was infringed by an arbitrary denial of a requested religious meal." (Doc. No. 376 at 11-12.) At this early stage of the proceedings, however, and when taken together with the other allegations regarding the conditions of Plaintiffs' confinement, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised a plausible free exercise claim, regardless of whether the Turner standard or a modified Turner standard applies. See Thompson R & R at 85-86 ("Because Plaintiff has put Defendants on notice of a plausible Free Exercise Clause claim, Defendant's motion to dismiss in this respect should be denied and Plaintiff's claims based on a First Amendment violation of his rights to freedom of religion ... should remain.").
Count VII asserts that Defendants have unreasonably restricted Plaintiffs' rights to free speech and free association. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 264-72.) As with their freedom of religion claim, Plaintiffs maintain that such restrictions "are not related to a legitimate institutional or therapeutic interest." (Id. ¶ 269.).
With respect to free speech, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have limited Plaintiffs' phone use, have limited Plaintiffs' access to certain newspapers and magazines, and have removed or censored articles from newspapers and magazines. (Id. ¶¶ 267-68.) The right of freedom of speech "includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute,
Insofar as Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' phone use and censorship policies, Plaintiffs have not identified the specific policies at issue; nor is the Court able to ascertain, at this stage, whether such policies are "reasonably related to legitimate institutional and therapeutic interests under the Turner factors," modified, or otherwise. See Thompson R & R at 77-78. Nevertheless, in light of the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs have raised a plausible claim that their First Amendment rights may be violated by overly restrictive policies, including those governing communication and censorship. See id. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' motion insofar as it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' free speech claims.
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have restricted Plaintiffs' freedom to associate with one another by limiting contact among the class members. (Second. Am. Compl. ¶ 266.).
While the Eighth Circuit has determined that the liberty interests of individuals committed to state custody as dangerous persons "are considerably less than those held by members of free society," the Eighth Circuit has also acknowledged that such individuals are "entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement" than prison inmates. Senty-Haugen, 462 F.3d at 886 (internal citations omitted). Although Plaintiffs' rights to freely associate are not unlimited, Plaintiffs no doubt retain, at a minimum, those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with legitimate security concerns. See Jones v. N.C. Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125, 132, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977) (noting that while "numerous associational rights are necessarily curtailed by the realities of confinement," even a prison inmate "retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system"). Equally, if not more important, however, are the therapeutic objectives of Plaintiffs' commitment to MSOP. See id. at 125, 97 S.Ct. 2532. Thus, the Court must consider challenges to MSOP restrictions that allegedly inhibit First Amendment interests in light of the legitimate policies and goals of the commitment system, to whose custody and care Plaintiffs have been committed. See id. (finding that challenges to policies that inhibit prisoners' First Amendment rights "must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system"); see also Minn. Admin. R. 9515.3080, subp. 1 ("The license holder must develop and follow policies and procedures for maintaining a secure and orderly environment that is safe for persons in treatment and staff and supportive of the treatment program.") (emphasis added). As such, in evaluating MSOP's policies, the Court must not only take into account safety concerns, but must also consider whether such policies are "supportive of the treatment program." See Minn. Admin. R. 9515.3080, subp. 1; Thompson R & R at 80-82. Again, considering Plaintiffs' claims with respect to restrictions on their ability to freely associate in light of all of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding their conditions of confinement, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a valid claim. The Court therefore denies Defendants' motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' freedom of association claim.
Each of Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims, as well as their other challenges to
To determine whether MSOP's policies violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights requires a balancing of fundamental liberties against institutional and therapeutic interests that, without the benefit of independent expert assessment (as discussed below), the Court is not equipped to undertake at this early stage. At a minimum, however, Plaintiffs have articulated a viable claim that Defendants' policies unlawfully restrict their First Amendment rights. As such, Counts VI and VII survive dismissal at this point in the proceedings.
Count VIII of Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights "through their search policies, procedures, and practices." (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 275.) Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' "random cell searches," "window checks," "strip searches," and "random pat downs." (Id. ¶¶ 276-78.)
"Involuntarily civilly committed persons retain the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches that is analogous to the right retained by pretrial detainees." Arnzen v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.2013) (quoting Beaulieu, 690 F.3d at 1017). To determine "reasonableness" in an institutional setting, a court must balance "the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558-59, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). In applying the balancing test, a court must consider: (1) the scope of the particular intrusion; (2) the manner in which the search is conducted; (3) the justification for initiating the search; and (4) the place in which the search is conducted. Serna, 567 F.3d at 949 (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861). A court must defer to the judgment of the correctional (or institutional) officials "unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of institutional security." Arnzen, 713 F.3d at 373 (quoting Beaulieu, 690 F.3d at 1029).
In the past, the Eighth Circuit has upheld the use of strip searches for the purposes of protecting the public, protecting transport teams, and preventing dangerous contraband from entering MSOP. See Arnzen, 713 F.3d at 373 (citing Beaulieu, 690 F.3d at 1027-30); see also Serna, 567 F.3d at 953. The Eighth Circuit, however, has also recently considered "the availability of less intrusive techniques when assessing the reasonableness of a challenged procedure," especially when "personal privacy" interests "and dignity" are at stake. Arnzen, 713 F.3d at 373, 375 (affirming district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting staff from capturing images of civilly committed sex offenders while they occupied single-person bathrooms); see also Serna, 567 F.3d at 955 ("[N]ot all search techniques may be swept
Defendants maintain that MSOP's search policies are related to legitimate safety and security concerns. (See Doc. No. 376 at 16-17.) A determination of the reasonableness of such searches, however, requires that a court consider and evaluate the unique characteristics of the search (or policy) in question. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861 ("The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."); see also Thompson R & R at 88 (noting that "the Supreme Court in Bell instructs that the balancing that needs to be done to determine the reasonableness of a search must be done on a case-by-case basis and requires at least some evidentiary record").
Considering Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim in conjunction with Plaintiffs' other allegations surrounding the punitive nature of their confinement, the Court is unable to determine at this time "if the alleged search policies and searches conducted in this case are reasonable and appropriate." Thompson R & R at 88-89. Contra Evenstad v. Herberg, 994 F.Supp.2d 995, 1002, Civ. No. 12-3179, 2014 WL 107718, at *5 (D.Minn. Jan. 10, 2014) (finding that "room searches are an `appropriate security measure'" and that it was not unreasonable to require a civilly committed individual "to remain outside his room" while it was searched). At this stage, the Court lacks specific details regarding the challenged searches and the particular policies at issue. See Thompson R & R at 89 ("Facts relating to the scope of the searches, the manner in which they were conducted, the justifications for the searches, and the places in which they were conducted are yet to be developed."). Taking the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint together, and assuming the allegations to be true for purposes of the instant motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have articulated a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. As such, the Court denies Defendants' motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of Count VIII.
Counts XII and XIII assert claims of breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract, respectively, against Defendants Jesson, Benson, Moser, Lundquist, Johnston, and Hébert related to their alleged failure to provide adequate treatment.
(Id. ¶ 318; see also Doc. No. 377, Figueroa Aff. ¶ 19, Exs. 18-31.)
For the same reasons discussed above with respect to Plaintiffs' failure to provide treatment claims, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated plausible contract-based claims at this stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Counts XII and XIII.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from monetary damages against them in their official capacities. (Doc. No. 376 at 3.) It appears from the Complaint, however, that Plaintiffs have limited their request for monetary damages to Defendants in their individual capacities. (See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 41.) Nevertheless, to the extent Plaintiffs may seek any such monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities, the Court agrees that monetary damages are not recoverable. See, e.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) ("[A] suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment."); see also Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) ("[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office."). Any claim for monetary damages against Defendants in their individual capacities, however, remains.
On December 6, 2013, the Court appointed Dr. Naomi Freeman, Ms. Deb McCulloch, Dr. Michael Miner, and Dr. Robin Wilson as experts pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Doc. No. 393 at 1-2.) The Court delineated the duties of the experts as follows:
(Id. ¶ 9.)
The parties submitted their respective proposals with respect to the work of the experts by letter. (Doc. No. 421.) Specifically, Plaintiffs propose that the experts focus their work on the following areas:
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs further request that:
(Id. at 3-4 (emphasis in original).) Defendants, however, seek to limit the experts' work to preparing a report that addresses the following:
(Id. at 4.) Defendants suggest that, following the issuance of the report, the Court may consider additional proposals by the parties for further expert work. (Id.)
Following the Court's meeting with the experts, the experts submitted their proposal to the Court, which requests a number of documents for their review, and further states, in relevant part:
(Doc. No. 422 at 1, 3 (emphasis in original).)
The experts request a number of reference documents, including publicly available reports and documents related to this lawsuit, as well as MSOP evaluation reports and administrative directives and rules. (Id. at 1.) The experts also request copies of MSOP's policies and procedures, such as the following: organizational charts ("including job descriptions and qualifications for clinical/treatment staff and supervisors"); a program description ("including phase goals/treatment targets, treatment hours, treatment service plans, etc."); the patient/resident handbook; the treatment schedule (including "standard resident schedule for each phase of treatment"); the grievance policy/process; the behavioral management plans/policies; the admission process and policy; the referral for release and release process; the staff-to-patient ratios and staffing numbers; the staff training policies; the assessments used for the treatment process; templates for any forms and assessments utilized in the treatment process; and a chart map (including a list of documents that should be in each resident's chart). (Id. at 1-2.)
The Court hereby orders that the experts shall have complete and unrestricted access to the requested documents, as well as any other documents they may require for their evaluations and assessments, insofar as such documents exist.
In addition, while the experts seek to conduct initial chart reviews to "get an understanding of what is happening in the program so that it may be evaluated, not to make comments about an individual resident's risk or treatment progress," the Court finds that independent risk assessments and treatment recommendations for each of the class members will ultimately be necessary in order for the Court to comprehensively evaluate Plaintiffs' claims, including whether the commitment statutes, as applied, and whether MSOP, as implemented, pass constitutional muster. Still, the Court recognizes that such a task is no small undertaking and will require a great deal of time and resources. The Court therefore approves the experts' plan "to review 20% to 25% of resident charts" at the outset, with the qualification
The Court hereby directs the experts to address each of the issues identified in the experts' proposal, and the additional issues raised by the parties, as well as the following: (a) each class member's 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; (c) whether each class member is placed in the proper treatment phase; (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.
With respect to less restrictive alternatives, in addition to developing proposals for any new in-patient facilities and issuing recommendations as to individual class member placement therein, the experts should also consider possible out-patient treatment options, including counseling, therapy, and support groups, and shall identify any class members who, in their professional judgment, are appropriate candidates for out-patient treatment.
The Court further directs that, when the experts commence their comprehensive evaluations, they start their evaluations with those individuals residing in the Assisted Living Unit, the Alternative Program Units, and the Young Adult Unit.
The Court notes that, on December 13, 2012, the Court approved James L. Haaven, M.A., William D. Murphy, Ph.D., Robert J. McGrath, M.A., Jill D. Stinson, Ph. D., and Christopher D. Kunkle, Psy.D., to serve as MPET members. (Doc. No. 281 at 2.) Part of the MPET's task was to review a random sampling of client treatment records, which it did. (Doc. No. 275; MPET Report.) As such, in performing their work, including the comprehensive evaluations of each class member, the experts may call upon the services of the above MPET members to help accomplish that task, or any other. The experts may also consult with and call upon Roberta Opheim, Minnesota State Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, in carrying out their duties, and shall have unrestricted access to do so.
The Court notes that its consideration of Plaintiffs' claims on the merits will require extensive evaluation of MSOP and in-depth assessments of the class members by the Court-appointed experts. The Court acknowledges, however, that such work on the part of the experts will likely take a substantial amount of time and require significant resources. As such, the experts may complete their review in a series of stages. As each stage proceeds, the findings of the experts may require that the experts adjust their evaluation approach in light of their findings. The Court therefore reserves the right to amend, alter, or supplement its expert orders as necessary.
Plaintiffs move for a declaratory judgment that the Minnesota statutes governing civil commitment and treatment of sex offenders are "unconstitutional as written and as applied." (Doc. No. 362 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the discharge standard set forth by statute, and as applied by Defendants, has "made it all but impossible for any individual to be released from civil commitment," and has thus rendered commitment to MSOP "in essence a life sentence," in violation of due process. (Id. at 1-2.).
The Court has broad discretion to grant declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiffs' due process challenge to the statutes is both facial
In further support of their facial challenge, Plaintiffs claim that "the commitment statute does not provide for a periodic and independent review," and the "lack of an automatic independent review makes the discharge statute unconstitutional on its face because, as written, the statute is not narrowly tailored to guarantee" that individuals are only confined so long as they "continue[] to need further inpatient treatment and supervision for [their] sexual disorder[s] and to pose a danger to the public." (Doc. No. 396 at 11, 12.) In this manner, Plaintiffs assert that "the statute on its face fails to bear a reasonable relationship to the original reason for commitment" and is thus unconstitutional. (Id. at 12.).
While Plaintiffs take issue with the standard for release as written,
Defendants acknowledge that MSOP includes eight "specialty units" for certain individuals, including, among others, the "Alternative Program Units," the "Young Adult Unit," and the "Assisted Living Unit." (Doc. No. 380 at 12 (citing Hébert Aff. ¶¶ 85-86).)
It defies reason that individuals who are comatose or otherwise completely incapacitated would be considered so dangerous as to require continued confinement in a secure, prison-like facility. Moreover, an individual who refuses to participate in treatment, but is no longer dangerous, cannot constitutionally continue to be confined in such a facility. See Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77, 112 S.Ct. 1780 (noting that a committed individual "may be held as long as he is both mentally ill and dangerous, but no longer" and that it is "unconstitutional for a State to continue to confine a
While the Court acknowledges the obvious potential for an ongoing harm to Plaintiffs, and notes that declaratory relief may ultimately be appropriate, a decision on the issue of the constitutionality of the Minnesota statutes governing civil commitment and treatment of sex offenders is premature at this juncture. While Plaintiffs' allegations have no doubt called into deep question Minnesota's sex offender commitment scheme, Plaintiffs have provided no factual or evidentiary support for the proposition that any class member is actually eligible for discharge under the applicable statutory provisions or otherwise no longer meets the statutory criteria for initial commitment. The experts will address that issue, as articulated above, in their assessments of each of the class members. At this early stage, and on the current record, however, the Court has no way of evaluating Plaintiffs' discharge-related claims.
A court considers four primary factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the likelihood of the moving party's success on the merits; (3) the state of balance between the alleged irreparable harm and the harm that granting the injunction would inflict on the other party; and (4) the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981). This analysis was designed to determine whether the court should intervene to preserve the status quo until it decides the merits of the case. Id. In each case, the factors must be balanced to determine whether they tilt toward or away from granting injunctive relief. See West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799 F.2d 1219, 1222 (8th Cir.1986). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. See Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Lenox Labs., Inc., 815 F.2d 500, 503 (8th Cir.1987). The party requesting the injunctive relief bears the "complete burden" of proving all of the factors listed above. Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir.1987).
Plaintiffs move for an injunction for the creation of less restrictive alternatives to confinement at MSOP facilities, as well as a re-evaluation of each of the class members to determine whether they are each placed in the proper treatment phase and whether they should be placed in a less restrictive facility. (Doc. No. 364 at 1; Doc. No. 368 at 2.).
To the extent Plaintiffs seek re-evaluation, the Court has appointed several expert witnesses and has assigned them several tasks, as set forth above. One such task is to conduct extensive evaluations, which will require independent assessments of each of the class members. Such evaluations shall include, but will not be limited to, whether each class member is "placed in the proper treatment phase" and whether each class member would be a candidate for a less restrictive facility. Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs move for a re-evaluation of each of the class members, the motion is now moot. The Court nonetheless reserves the right to revise, expand, or otherwise amend the scope of expert review in this matter as the case progresses.
With respect to less restrictive alternatives, Plaintiffs allege that "MSOP does not provide for any less restrictive alternatives to confinement at Moose Lake or St. Peter, such as halfway houses or other less secure facilities." (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 68.) Plaintiffs claim that MSOP's failure to provide a less restrictive alternative to
While it previously appeared that Commissioner Jesson was taking steps toward moving some class members to a less restrictive facility
To the extent Plaintiffs seek the immediate creation of less restrictive alternatives, the motion is premature nonetheless. Without a current assessment of each of the class members to determine the exact need for facilities alternative to Moose Lake and St. Peter, the Court has no way of establishing the specific parameters of such less restrictive facilities — for example, how many facilities might need to be created, how many individuals any such facility could and should house, what unique services each facility would provide, and the varied levels of security that each would necessitate.
The tasks of the Court-appointed experts, as delineated above, include an assessment of the specific need and parameters for any less restrictive alternative facilities. Of course, a determination of what features and services less restrictive alternatives to Moose Lake and St. Peter should have is directly related to expert evaluation of each of the class members, including dangerousness, which likely will require a current risk assessment for
Plaintiffs have also moved for the appointment of a special master. Specifically, Plaintiffs "request a[s]pecial [m]aster to oversee the implementation of changes that will lead to a constitutional treatment program." (Doc. No. 398 at 18 (emphasis in original).) A court "may, in its discretion, make appointment of a Master to assist in any of the incidents of a proceeding before it, ... so long as there is no infringement upon the right of trial by jury or any prejudice to other substantive right." Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855, 865 (8th Cir.1956).
For the reasons articulated above, the Court has declined to rule on the constitutionality of MSOP, or its implementing statutes, at this time. The Court has further denied Plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief. As such, any request for the appointment of a special master to oversee changes to the program is premature at this stage of the proceedings. The Court makes no determination, however, as to whether a special master may be required in the future and reserves the right to appoint such an individual should the record, as developed, support such a need. Consequently, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.
Having fully considered the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court concludes that each count of Plaintiffs' Complaint (with the exception of the equal protection claim) easily survives dismissal. With respect to Plaintiffs' motions, the primary basis upon which Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief is the inference that Plaintiffs suggest should be made from the fact that no one has ever been fully discharged from MSOP. While that fact is certainly compelling, it, alone, is insufficient for the Court to grant the requested relief at this early stage of the proceedings. Indeed, such a fact should not be taken lightly, and may indicate pervasive constitutional inadequacies of the program; the purpose of the discovery and expert review processes is to shed light on such claims. Though Plaintiffs are not currently entitled to the injunctive and declaratory relief they seek, they may well be entitled to such relief if they establish, and prove true, the allegations set forth in the Complaint.
As is evident from the law cited throughout this opinion, Minnesota may not constitutionally confine individuals at
In addition, one would expect that a non-punitive, civil commitment scheme would provide treatment for those committed because of a "mental disease or mental abnormality." See id. at 372, 117 S.Ct. 2072. What is more, Minnesota law dictates that civilly committed individuals have "the right to receive proper care and treatment, best adapted, according to contemporary professional standards, to rendering further supervision unnecessary." Minn.Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 7. If the evidence confirms Plaintiffs' contentions, and MSOP systemically fails to provide patients with appropriate treatment, whether because of a lack of qualified staff, a misguided approach, excessive restrictions, or some other reason, the Court, like others, will not hesitate to take strong remedial action.
Likewise, despite "the object or purpose" of Minnesota's civil commitment law to provide treatment, if "the treatment provisions were adopted as a sham or mere pretext" for continued detention, such a scheme would indicate "the forbidden purpose to punish." Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 371, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (Kennedy, J., concurring). It is the treatment provisions of the statutory scheme that purportedly distinguish Minnesota's sex offender commitment law from criminal punishment. Therefore, individuals must be committed for the purpose of receiving treatment — not as retribution for their past criminal acts, however heinous, for which they have already served and completed their sentences. See Crane, 534 U.S. at 412, 122 S.Ct. 867 (distinguishing "a dangerous sexual offender subject to civil commitment from other dangerous persons" and finding such a distinction "necessary lest civil commitment become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence — functions properly those of criminal law, not civil commitment") (internal quotations omitted); see also Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 373, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("If the civil system is used simply to impose punishment after the State makes an improvident plea bargain on the criminal side, then it is not performing its proper function.").
Plaintiffs charge that political maneuvering by various executive branch officials has played far too great a role in the administration of MSOP — in contravention of sound professional judgment and best practices; not only have Governors past and present issued executive directives prohibiting discharge from, and exercising control over, the system, but the Attorney General has also intervened in provisional release proceedings, which Plaintiffs suggest has politicized a process best left to treatment professionals in the field. Without in any way prejudging the outcome here, the Court must emphasize that politics and stigma cannot trump the fundamental rights of the class members who, pursuant to state law, have been civilly committed to receive treatment. To be sure, where state actors fail to remedy constitutional infirmities of statutes and programs such as those at issue here, the federal courts may be called upon to act in the interests of justice, as required by the evidence.
Today, the Court finds that it is constitutionally mandated that only individuals who constitute a "real, continuing, and serious danger to society" may continue to be civilly committed to MSOP. See Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 372, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (Kennedy, J., concurring). If the evidence demonstrates that MSOP systematically continues to confine individuals who are not "a real, continuing, and serious danger to society," then such confinement will be held unconstitutional. See id. Thus, the confinement of individuals with substantial medical or intellectual disabilities, who might never succeed in MSOP's program, or are otherwise unlikely to reoffend, may be called into serious question.
As this case proceeds, the Court will address the global challenge to the policies, conditions, and practices maintained by Defendants. That those committed and confined to MSOP are sex offenders, who may be subject to society's opprobrium, does not insulate the system from a fair and probing constitutional inquiry. If the program violates the Constitution, the Court will so find and act accordingly.
On the record currently before the Court, however, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances sufficient to justify injunctive or declaratory relief at this time. The Court thus denies
While the Court has limited its review of Defendants' motion to dismiss to the Complaint and matters of public record, and Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief to the record currently before the Court, it is worth noting that Plaintiffs and the amicus curiae reference commitment schemes established by other states and specialized research that indicate that the "vast majority" of sex offenders can be "safely managed in the community." (See, e.g., Doc. No. 410, Nelson Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 at 9.)
If the evidence requires it, the Court will act. But it is the Minnesota Legislature that is best equipped to develop policies and pass laws — within the limits of the Constitution — that both protect public safety and preserve the rights of the class.
The time for legislative action is now. Time and again, professional assessments have identified grave deficiencies in the program. Regardless of the claims raised in this case, and irrespective of the Court's ultimate rulings on any constitutional questions with which it is presented, the interests of justice require that substantial changes be made to Minnesota's sex offender civil commitment scheme.
Based upon the foregoing, and the files, records, and proceedings herein,
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. [374]) is
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. [360]) is
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Provide Less Restrictive Alternative Treatment Facilities and to Re-Evaluate Class Members (Doc. No. [364]) is
4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction for the Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (Doc. No. [368]) is
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:
Minn.Stat. § 253D.02, subd. 15 (formerly Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b).
Minn.Stat. § 253D.02, subd. 16 (formerly Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18c).
(Second Am. Compl. ¶ 65 (citation formatting added).) According to Defendants, "MSOP currently has 698 clients...." (Doc. No. 385, Hébert Aff. ¶ 5.).
(OLA Report at 1; see also Second Am. Compl. ¶ 65 (citing OLA Report at 4).)
(OLA Report at 66.)
(Id. ¶ 137.) Plaintiffs further allege that they "are double bunked in 9.5 × 15 ft. wet cells consisting of two metal bed frames with springless mattresses that are only 30 inches apart, small stainless steel desks, and a stainless steel toilet/sink combination unit fixed into the cell." (Id. ¶ 143.) Additionally, Plaintiffs describe that: "[c]ell doors are metal and only have a small viewing window. The two windows in each cell are only five inches wide. The only privacy when using the toilet is a movable screen." (Id. ¶ 144.) Plaintiffs claim that they "are locked in [their] cells every day from at least 9:45 p.m. until 6:25 a.m." (Id. ¶ 145.)
In this case, there may be particular actions of the executive (such as the administration of treatment) that may ultimately be analyzed under the "shocks the conscience" standard. See infra Part I.B.2 (Failure to Provide Treatment Claims). Whether the strict scrutiny or the "shocks the conscience" standard applies to a particular claim, however, an allegation of the denial of substantive due process "is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case." Lewis, 523 U.S. at 850, 118 S.Ct. 1708; see also id. ("[O]ur concern with preserving the constitutional proportions of substantive due process demands an exact analysis of circumstances before any abuse of power is condemned as conscience shocking.").
Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77-78, 112 S.Ct. 1780 (footnote omitted).
Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see id. at 264, 121 S.Ct. 727 (majority opinion).
Seling, 531 U.S. at 263, 121 S.Ct. 727.
(Second. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 75, 78, 84-85.)
While allegations pertaining to Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights to treatment pervade the Complaint, the Court in no way implies that constitutionally adequate treatment requires that an individual actually be "cured" of his "mental disease or mental abnormality" or other psychological condition. But see Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77, 112 S.Ct. 1780 (requiring release when a committed individual "has recovered his sanity or is no longer dangerous").
(Second Am. Compl. ¶ 220 (citation formatting added).)
(Doc. No. 376 at 33.).
Beaulieu, 690 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Benzel v. Grammer, 869 F.2d 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 1989)).
Minn.Stat. § 253D.31.
Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 372-73, 117 S.Ct. 2072 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
(Nelson Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 at 9.)
Moreover, separate from the issue of indeterminate sentencing, extended correctional supervision may, and often does, include GPS monitoring, treatment, curfews, alcohol and drug testing, and other conditions of release and supervision. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 8 (noting that conditions of release "may include successful completion of treatment and aftercare" program); Minn. Stat. § 244.05, subd. 6 (permitting imposition of conditions of release including random drug testing, house arrest, daily curfews, and electronic surveillance as well as participation in "an appropriate sex offender program").
