Benson v. Harpstead

1

Michael Benson, and others similarly situated,^[1] Plaintiff, v. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, Sued in Official Capacity, Defendant.

Michael Benson, Petitioner, v. Commissioner Jodi Harpstead, Respondent.

Nos. 22-cv-1601 (ECT/TNL), 22-cv-2017 (ECT/TNL)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

June 29, 2023

Michael Benson, 1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se

Aaron Winter, Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St Paul, MN 55101, for Commissioner Jodi Harpstead

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

TONY N. LEUNG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Collectively, these matters comes before the Court on pro se litigant Michael Benson's “alleg[ations] that the State of Minnesota has failed to provide adequate procedural opportunity for [civilly committed persons] such as himself to assert that they should no longer be civilly detained.” Order at 1, ECF No. 11 in No. 22-cv-1601.^[2]“Unclear as to whether he should seek relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (or both), Benson has filed one of each action, raising substantially the same claim for relief in each.” Order at 1-2, ECF No. 11 in No. 22-cv-1601.

II. BACKGROUND

It is undisputed that Benson has been indeterminately committed to MSOP for approximately three decades. See, e.g., Mem. in Supp. of Pet. at 1, ECF No. 3 in No. 22-cv-2017; Mem. in Supp. of Resp. at 2, ECF No. 8 in No. 22-cv-2017; see also generally In re Benson, No. C0-93-1357, 1993 WL 459840 (Minn.Ct.App. Nov. 9, 1993).

A. Reduction-in-Custody Process

Under Minnesota law,

[a] person who is committed as a sexually dangerous person or a person with a sexual psychopathic personality shall not be discharged until it appears to the satisfaction of the [Commitment Appeal Panel^[3], after a hearing and recommendation by a majority of the special review board, that the committed person is capable of making an acceptable adjustment to open society, is no longer dangerous to the public, and is no longer in need of treatment and supervision.

Minn. Stat. § 253D.31.

An individual like Benson who has been civilly committed to MSOP may seek a discharge by filing a petition with a statutorily established body known as the Special Review Board. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2; Mem. in Supp. of Resp. at 3. The Special Review Board holds a hearing on the petition and then issues a report with written findings of fact and a recommendation as to whether the petition should be approved or denied. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subds. 3(a), 4; Mem. in Supp. of Resp. at 3; see, e.g., Findings of Fact & Recommendation of the Special Review Board [hereinafter “SRB Report”], ECF No. 3 at 8-16 in No. 22-cv-2017. This report is forwarded to the Commitment Appeal Panel. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 4.

“If no party petitions the [Commitment Appeal Panel] for a rehearing or reconsideration within 30 days, the [Commitment Appeal Panel] shall either issue an order adopting the recommendations of the [S]pecial [R]eview [B]oard or set the matter on for a hearing.” Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(c).

A party may seek “rehearing and reconsideration” of the Special Review Board's recommendation by petitioning the Commitment Appeal Panel. Id., subd. 1(a); Mem. in Supp. of Resp. at 3. “The petition must be filed with the supreme court within 30 days after the recommendation is mailed ....” Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(b). “The supreme court . . . [then] refer[s the] petition for rehearing and reconsideration to the chief judge of the [Commitment Appeal Panel].” Id., subd. 2(a). The Commitment Appeal Panel then sets “the time and place of the hearing on the petition.” Id. “The hearing must be held within 180 days of the filing of the petition unless an extension is granted for good cause.” Id., subd. 1(b).

The Commitment Appeal Panel then “consider[s] the petition de novo” and “rule[s] upon the petition.” Id., subd. 3. An order of the Commitment Appeal Panel may be appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Id., subd. 4; Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 5.

B. 2021 Findings of Fact & Recommendation of the Special Review Board

In April 2020,^[4] Benson petitioned for a reduction in custody under Minn. Stat. § 253D.27. Compl. ¶ 10; see also Ex. A to Decl. of Aaron Winter, ECF No. 9-1 at 36 in No. 22-cv-2017. The Special Review Board held a hearing on Benson's petition on March 23, 2021. Compl. ¶ 10; SRB Report at 1.

On April 3, 2021, the Special Review Board issued its report under Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 4, for the Commitment Appeal Panel. Compl. ¶ 10; see generally SRB Report. The Special Review Board recommended that Benson's petition be denied. SRB Report at 1, 9.

C. 2021 Petition for Rehearing & Reconsideration

Approximately one week later, in mid-April 2021, Benson petitioned for rehearing and reconsideration by the Commitment Appeal Panel under Minn. Stat. § 253D.28. Compl. ¶ 12; Mem. in Supp. of Pet. at 2; Ex. B to Winter Decl., ECF No. 9-1 at 42 in No. 22-cv-2017; see also Benson v. Johnston, No. A21-1111, 2022 WL 1004845, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 4, 2022), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2022). Under the 180-day timeline of Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(b), the Commitment Appeal Panel is required to hold a hearing on Benson's petition within 180 days unless an extension is granted, thus requiring the hearing to be held sometime in approximately mid-October 2021. At the time Benson filed these actions in June and August 2022, Benson had not yet had a hearing before the Commitment Appeal Panel or been given notice as to when such a hearing would take place. Compl. ¶ 12; Mem. in Supp. of Pet. at 2.

D. State Habeas Proceedings

In the meantime, approximately one week after he petitioned for rehearing and reconsideration by the Commitment Appeal Panel, Benson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state district court. Benson, 2022 WL 1004845, at *1; see Pet. at 2, ECF No. 1 in No. 22-cv-2017; Decl. of Aaron Winter ¶¶ 2-4, ECF No. 9 in No. 22-cv-2017; see generally Exs. A-C to Winter Decl., ECF No. 9-1 in No. 22-cv-2017; see also generally Benson v. Johnston, No. 09-CV-21-816 (Minn. Dist. Ct.) (Apr. 21, 2021) (Index #2).^[5] Among other things, Benson asserted that the reduction-in-custody process took an unconstitutionally long time. Mem. in Supp. of Resp. at 8; Pet. at 2; see, e.g., Ex. A to Winter Decl., ECF No. 9-1 at 19-20, 31-32, 36 in No. 22-cv-2017; Ex. C to Winter Decl., ECF No. 9-1 at 54 in No. 22-cv-2017.

The state district court denied the petition and Benson appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See generally Benson, 2022 WL 1004845; Ex. C to Winter Decl., ECF No. 9-1 at 50-54 in No. 22-cv-2017. Benson's petition for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court was subsequently denied. Benson v. Johnston, No. A21-1111 (Minn. June 21, 2022) (order).

E. Federal Cases

1. Section 1983 Civil Action, No. 22-cv-1601

Benson filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Benson alleges that Commissioner Jodi Harpstead has violated his rights to “Substantive and Procedural Due Process by failing to create a sufficient number of Special Review Boards,” thereby causing the reduction-in-custody process to become “unreasonably delayed.” Compl. ¶¶ 8-9. Benson alleges that he “had to unreasonably wait 348 days” to appear before the Special Review Board after petitioning for a reduction in custody. Compl. ¶ 10 (emphasis omitted). Benson alleges that Minn. Stat. § 253B.22 “dictates that each patient ‘shall have the [r]ight' to appear at” a “proceeding which is held ‘at least once every six months.'” Compl. ¶ 10 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 253B.22, subd. 2).^[6] Benson alleges that, “by not creating enough [Special Review Board] panels,” Commissioner Harpstead has “knowingly and deliberately frustrated [his] . . . Fourteenth Amendment Right to a [Special Review Board] hearing within a reasonable amount of time.” Compl. ¶ 10. And because appearance before the Special Review Board is required to appear before the Commitment Appeal Panel, which determines whether an individual like Benson may be discharged, Benson alleges that Commissioner Harpstead's failure to create enough Special Review Board panels results in access to the Commitment Appeal Panel being “unreasonably delayed by several months (if not years)” and amounts to “a deliberate strategy that unreasonably frustrates the ability to appeal to the [Commitment Appeal Panel] within a reasonable amount of time.” Compl. ¶ 11.

Similarly, Benson alleges that Commissioner Harpstead has violated his “Constitutional Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process by failing to request the required number of [Commitment Appeal Panels] necessary to allow for timely review of [his] . . . continued confinement within a reasonable amount of time.” Compl. ¶ 12. Benson alleges that, under Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, the Minnesota Supreme Court establishes the Commitment Appeal Panel, the compensation and expenses of which are born by the Department of Human Services. Compl. ¶ 12. Benson alleges that, as Commissioner Harpstead “is undeniably responsible for both the compensation and expense,” she has “a ministerial duty . . . to request from the [Minnesota] Supreme Court the need for more [Commitment Appeal Panels] to comply with Minnesota law.”

Compl. ¶ 12; see also Compl. ¶ 12 (“refus[ing] to perform the mandated responsibility of requesting the [Minnesota] Supreme Court to create more [Commitment Appeal Panels]”). Pointing to the 180-day clock in Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(b), Benson alleges that he petitioned for rehearing and reconsideration before...