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.

Karsjens v. Piper

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 3, 2017

Kevin Scott Karsjens, David Leroy Gamble, Jr., 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, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt, Bradley Wayne Foster, Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Emily Johnson Piper, Kevin Moser, Peter Puffer, Nancy Johnston, Jannine Hébert, and Ann Zimmerman, in their official capacities, Defendants.

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq., Karla M. Gluek, Esq., David A. Goodwin, Esq., Raina Borrelli, Esq., and Eric S. Taubel, Esq., Gustafson Gluek PLLC, counsel for Plaintiffs.

          Scott H. Ikeda, Adam H. Welle, and Aaron Winter, Assistant Attorneys General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Defendants.

          ORDER

          Donovan W. Frank United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on the parties' case status briefs submitted in response to the Court's March 14, 2017 Order. (See Doc. Nos. 1072, 1074-79.) In that order, the Court directed the parties to establish a briefing schedule on four issues: (1) whether this case should remain stayed, in whole or in part, pending further appeal; (2) whether the other stayed cases in the District with substantially similar claims should remain stayed pending further appeal; (3) the next steps in this case on remaining Phase One claims if these claims are not stayed; and (4) the next steps in this case on Phase Two claims if these claims are not stayed. (Doc. No. 1072.) The parties have filed opening and response briefs on these issues. (Doc. Nos. 1074-79.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will stay this case in its entirety and review the propriety of continuing the stay in ninety days.

         BACKGROUND

         I. General Background

         The Court has recited the factual background underlying Plaintiffs' claims in prior orders. (See generally Doc. No. 966.) In short, Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts a class action on behalf of committed individuals residing at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) to challenge Defendants' implementation of the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act, Minnesota Statute Chapter 253D, and operation of MSOP. (See generally Doc. No. 635.)[1]

         II. Procedural Background

         Pursuant to the Court's November 7, 2014 Final Pretrial Order, trial in this matter was split into two phases. (Doc. No. 647.) The Court explained:

Phase One will be comprised of the presentation of evidence and argument on the following issues: (1) whether Minnesota Statute Chapter 253D is unconstitutional on its face and as applied; (2) whether the treatment provided is constitutionally and/or statutorily infirm; (3) whether the treatment program complies with court-ordered treatment; (4) whether confinement is tantamount to unconstitutional punitive detention; and (5) whether less restrictive alternatives to confinement are constitutionally required. . . .
Phase Two shall be comprised of the presentation of evidence and argument on the following issues: (1) whether confinement conditions constitute unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech, religion, and association; (2) whether confinement procedures constitute unconstitutional searches and seizures; (3) whether the treatment program and its implementation constitutes a breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and intentional violation of Minnesota Statute Section 253B.03(7).

(Id. at 2.) Trial proceedings in Phase One commenced on February 9, 2015 and concluded on March 18, 2015. (See Doc. Nos. 839; 908.) On June 17, 2015, the Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, granting Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief with respect to Counts I and II of their Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 966 at 75.) The Court determined that it did not need to address Counts III, V, VI, and VII “because any remedy fashioned will address the issues raised in the remaining Phase One Counts.” (Id. at 65.) The Court noted that its “determination that the MSOP and its governing civil commitment statutes are unconstitutional concludes Phase One of this case.” (Id. at 5.) The Court also reiterated that “Counts VIII, IX, and X, will be tried in the second phase of trial (‘Phase Two').”[2] (Id. at 76.) On October 29, 2015, the Court issued a First Interim Relief Order directing injunctive relief to remedy the court's findings of unconstitutionality. (Doc. No. 1035.)

         On October 29, 2015, Defendants appealed the Court's June 17, 2015 and October 29, 2015 Orders. (Doc. No. 1036.) On January 3, 2017, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion “revers[ing] the district court's finding of a constitutional violation and vacat[ing] the injunctive order.” Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394, 411 (8th Cir. 2017). It remanded the case to this Court “for further proceedings on the remaining claims in the Third Amended Complaint.” Id. The Eighth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc. See Karsjens v. Piper, No. 15-3485, Entry ID: 4503853 (8th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017). As noted in Plaintiffs' March ...


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.