Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Civil Commitment of Giishig

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

September 9, 2013

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ozahwaasko Giishig, n/k/a Guy Greene

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Sherburne County District Court File No. 71-P9-05-002825

Guy Israel Greene, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Matthew G. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent State of Minnesota)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Chutich, Judge.

RODENBERG, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. He also argues that the district court erred by denying his motions requesting the appointment of counsel, sanctions against the assistant attorney general, and that the district court recuse itself from this matter. We affirm.

FACTS

In September 2006, the district court indeterminately committed Ozahwaasko Giishig, n/k/a/ Guy Greene, as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). In 2007, appellant appealed his commitment. We affirmed. See In re Civil Commitment of Giishig, No. A07-0616, 2007 WL 2601423 (Minn.App. Sept. 11, 2007), review denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 2007).

Following his commitment, appellant has sought relief at the federal and state level. Appellant is currently a member of a federal class action suit against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). See Karsjens v. Jesson, No. 11-CV-3659 (D. Minn. June 24, 2012) (order certifying class). He has also filed his own case in federal court, which has been stayed pending the resolution of the class action. See Greene v. Benson, No. 11-CV-979 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2012) (order staying pending cases). In state court, appellant has filed numerous motions and a petition seeking to vacate his commitment, all of which have been denied.

On November 9, 2012, appellant moved for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(e) requesting an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel. Appellant argued that "changed circumstances" existed because "the Minnesota Sex Offender Program no longer offers adequate treatment, " claiming that a March 2011 report by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, which was issued following an evaluation of the MSOP and the civil commitment process, be recognized as newly discovered evidence. On December 20, 2012, appellant moved the district court to recuse itself because its previous order dismissing a prior rule 60.02(f) motion represented "nothing but Revenge and Retribution in order to oppress and deny" him counsel.

On December 31, 2012, the county responded, arguing that appellant's motion should be denied because appellant is improperly seeking discharge from his commitment and that he is not entitled to equitable relief because he is not participating in treatment. The county provided evidence that appellant is considered a nonparticipant in treatment because he withdrew completely from treatment in 2009 and, other than a single group session in 2010, has not participated in treatment since 2009. The county also included a news article regarding litigation surrounding the MSOP in which appellant is quoted as saying, "I'm going to sue my way out the front door."

Appellant objected to the county's response and requested sanctions under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11. Appellant denied that he was refusing treatment. He filed a copy of a signed treatment consent form, which was dated after the state had filed its response, and which appellant also claimed he signed under duress. On February 15, 2013, appellant filed another rule 60.02(e) motion, again arguing that "changed circumstances" exist.

On March 5, 2013, the district court denied appellant's rule 60.02 motion because it "is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the statutory process for discharge from commitment." The district court concluded that, although appellant makes individual claims of inadequate treatment, the remedy he is seeking is not a change in treatment but a discharge. The district court also denied appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, for rule 11 sanctions against the assistant attorney ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.