Karsjens et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al
| Kevin Scott Karsjens, David LeRoy Gamble, Kevin John DeVillion, Peter Gerard Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., James John Rud, James Allen Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Dennis Richard Steiner, Kaine Joseph Braun, Brian Keith Hausfeld, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt and Bradley Wayne Foster |
| Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Lucinda Jesson, Kevin Moser, Dennis Benson, Michael Tessner, Tom Lundquist, Jim Berg, Ann Zimmerman, Laurie Severson, Greg Carlson, Elisabeth Barbo, Mehrdad Sabestari, Terry Kneisel, Scott Benoit, Susan Johnson, Jean Seykora, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 0:2011cv03659 |
| December 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Carlton |
| Donovan W. Frank |
| Janie S. Mayeron |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
1197
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' remaining claims (Counts V, VI, and VII) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/17/2022.(las) Modified signature date/text on 2/23/2022 (las).
|
|
Filing
1166
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 1152 ) is respectfully DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/30/2021. (las)
|
|
Filing
1108
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' remaining Phase One claims (Counts III, V, VI and VII) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Phase Two (Counts VIII, IX, and X) (Doc. No. 1095 ) is GRANTE D and these counts are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants' Motion for Final Apportionment of Rule 706 Expert Costs (Doc. No. 1095 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal in connection with a Motion for Costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/23/2018. (las)
|
|
Filing
1080
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)
|
|
Filing
1006
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 Septem ber 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, Wa rren 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 pr eviously 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 implem ent 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 civ il 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 fail ure 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 violat ions, 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)
|
|
Filing
1002
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)
|
|
Filing
986
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 confere nces, 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 b e 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)
|
|
Filing
984
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)
|
|
Filing
967
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 re fuse 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 t o 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 Un ited 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)
|
|
Filing
963
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)
|
|
Filing
832
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 Pertinen t 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 Defenda nts 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 admissi ble 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)
|
|
Filing
828
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)
|
|
Filing
763
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)
|
|
Filing
665
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)
|
|
Filing
598
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)
|
|
Filing
580
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 f or 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)
|
|
Filing
550
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. an d 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 insofa r 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. Pursua nt 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 wo uld 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)
|
|
Filing
468
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).
|
|
Filing
427
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 i s 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 WITH OUT 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 al l 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 discha rge); (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 facilit ies,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 recommenda tions 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 ther apeutic 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 profes sional 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 comm unity, 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 7; 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 pa tient 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 request ed 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 informatio n, 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 MSO P 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 trea tment 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 re quested 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 wo rk, 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 Magi strate 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)
|
|
Filing
400
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).
|
|
Filing
280
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).
|
|
Filing
205
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 al l 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)
|
|
Filing
203
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)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
