In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Arden Charles Reich
Pope County District Court File No. 61-PR-11-97
Arden C. Reich, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John D. Gross, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and court-appointed counsel. We affirm.
The district court indeterminately committed appellant Arden Charles Reich as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) in January 2012. In February 2013, Reich filed a "motion for evidentiary hearing pursuant to rule 60.02(e)" asking "the committing court to look at the original commitment during an [e]videntiary [h]earing" because "during his commitment" at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) he has "not been offered adequate treatment to meet his needs." Reich argued that the lack of treatment at MSOP violates his due-process rights. The district court determined that Reich also effectively raised double-jeopardy and equal-protection claims. In addition to his request for an evidentiary hearing, Reich moved the district court to appoint an attorney to represent him in the motion proceeding.
Respondent State of Minnesota filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Reich's motion for an evidentiary hearing. Along with the memorandum, the state submitted an affidavit of Tara Osborne, an MSOP clinical supervisor familiar with Reich. Osborne stated that Reich "is currently considered a non-participant in the MSOP treatment program, as he chooses not to participate in sex offender specific programming. He has refused to sign his individual treatment plan and treatment contract."
The district court denied Reich's motion for court-appointed counsel on March 1 and denied Reich's motion for an evidentiary hearing in a written order filed March 8. This appeal follows.
On appeal, Reich argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(e) because "there are changed circumstances ...