In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: William Clement Beals, f/k/a William Edward Shatto
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69-P9-92-600126.
William C. Beals, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant).
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Benjamin M. Stromberg, Assistant County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent St. Louis County).
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. He argues that he is being denied adequate treatment while civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion, we affirm.
Appellant has been civilly committed to the MSOP as a sexual psychopathic personality since 1992. In January 2013, appellant filed a motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(d)–(f). He claimed that he has no mental illness to justify his civil commitment; that his period of commitment had been satisfied; that the MSOP does not provide adequate treatment; and that he should be transferred to a veterans hospital for treatment for posttraumatic-stress disorder. To support his claim that the MSOP fails to provide adequate treatment, he cited a March 2011 report by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor that was issued following an evaluation of the MSOP and Minnesota's civil-commitment process. In his prayer for relief, appellant requested a ruling that his civil commitment "is no longer permissible" or an amendment to his civil-commitment order due to "fraud." In the alternative, appellant requested that he be transferred to an alternative sex-offender-treatment facility or a veterans hospital.
In response to appellant's motion, the state submitted a letter brief asking that the motion be dismissed or summarily denied because appellant's requests were for a discharge from civil commitment or transfer to another facility, and such requests must be brought before a civil commitment special review board rather than a court. Appellant then submitted a reply in which he amended his prayer for relief to "whatever relief deemed appropriate" by the court. He again argued that his treatment was inadequate, citing the report from the MSOP evaluation.
The district court subsequently issued an order denying appellant's motion. The court held that appellant was "obviously requesting the [c]ourt to release or transfer him from his current commitment, " and that such a request must be addressed to a special review board rather than the courts. This appeal follows.
On appeal, appellant raises only his claim of inadequate treatment in the MSOP. He does not address the other claims raised in his motion, and thus those claims have been waived. See Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982) (stating that issues not briefed on appeal are waived).
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. ...