Dalen v. Harpstead

1

Kyle Jerome Dalen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, in her individual and official capacities, Defendant.

No. 23-cv-1877 (ECT/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 16, 2024

Daniel E. Gustafson, David A. Goodwin, Anthony J. Stauber, and Joseph E. Nelson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN Kevin J. Wetherille and James P. Conway, Jaspers Moriarty & Wetherille, P.A., Shakopee, MN; Jason D. Gustafson Throndset Michenfelder Law Office, LLC, St. Michael, MN, and Hannah L. Scheidecker, Fremstad Law, Fargo, ND, for Plaintiff Kyle Jerome Dalen.

Aaron Winter and Sparrowleaf Dilts McGregor, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant Jodi Harpstead.

OPINION AND ORDER

Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Court

Plaintiff Kyle Jerome Dalen was under a civil commitment order while in the custody of a Minnesota county jail facing criminal charges. Mr. Dalen claims that a Minnesota statute, Minn Stat. § 253B.10, subdiv. 1(b), required his admission to a state-operated treatment program within 48 hours of his detention in Stearns County. His admission was delayed well beyond that 48-hour period. When Mr. Dalen was detained originally, the statute required his admission to a treatment facility “within 48 hours.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.10, subdiv. 1(b) (2022). It seems every court to have decided the question understood this 48-hour period to run beginning on entry of a commitment order. Not quite two months into Mr Dalen's detention, the statute was amended to say that the 48-hour period begins to run when a state official determines “a medically appropriate bed is available.” 2023 Minn. Laws c. 61, art. 4, § 7.

In this case removed from Dakota County District Court, Mr. Dalen asserts several federal and state claims-including claims under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions-on his behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who, like Mr. Dalen, have been injured by violations of the 48-hour rule. There may be more to the case, but as I understand it, Mr. Dalen seeks damages arising from the Commissioner's violation of the 48-hour rule's earlier version and an injunction halting implementation of the amended version.

Two motions require a decision. (1) The Commissioner has moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and merits grounds, and (2) Mr. Dalen seeks to preliminarily enjoin implementation of the 48-hour rule's 2023 amendment pending entry of final judgment in this case.^[1] The Commissioner's motion will be granted in part. Though the better answer at this stage is that Mr. Dalen has Article III standing to bring this case, his federal claims are not plausibly alleged, and they will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Primarily for this same reason, and because he has not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm, Mr. Dalen's motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied. Mr. Dalen will be given the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. If he chooses not to pursue that course, the federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice, judgment will be entered, and the case will be remanded to Dakota County District Court for adjudication of Mr. Dalen's claims under Minnesota law.

I

Minn. Stat. § 253B.10, subdiv. 1

Section 253B.10 is central to Mr. Dalen's claims, so it helps to describe it up front. The statute generally describes procedures to be followed when a person is civilly committed. It requires that, when a person is civilly committed, “the court shall issue a warrant or an order committing the patient to the custody of the head of the treatment facility, state-operated treatment program, or community-based treatment program.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.10, subdiv. 1(a).

The statute requires the Commissioner to “prioritize patients being admitted from jail or a correctional institution” who fall into any of four categories: (1) persons “ordered confined in a state-operated treatment program for” a competency examination under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01; (2) persons “under civil commitment for competency treatment and continuing supervision” after being found incompetent to stand trial, see Minn. R. Crim. P. Rule 20.01, subdiv. 7; (3) persons “found not guilty by reason of mental illness” pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.02, subdivision 8, and who are either “under civil commitment or are ordered to be detained in a state-operated treatment program pending completion of the civil commitment proceedings”; or (4) persons who are civilly committed “after dismissal of the [person's] criminal charges.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.10, subdiv. 1(b)(1)-(4).

Of central significance here, the statute establishes a deadline by which persons who fall into any of these four categories must be admitted to a state-operated treatment program. In view of the recent statutory amendment, this deadline's history deserves some explanation.

Beginning July 1, 2013, the statute required that persons described in any of the four prioritized-admission categories “must be admitted to a service operated by the commissioner within 48 hours.” 2013 Minn. Laws c. 108, art. 4, § 11. Prior to July 1, 2013, the law contained no such deadline; the law did not prioritize admission of civilly committed patients from a jail or correctional institution. See id. The statute was amended in 2020 to specify that admission “within 48 hours” must be “to a state-operated treatment program.” 2020 Minn. Laws c. 2, art. 6, § 60. Minnesota state courts have interpreted the 48-hour deadline's original 2013 version as beginning to run when a court entered the “warrant or an order committing the patient” as required by the first sentence of Minn. Stat. § 253B.10, subdiv. 1. Swope v. Harpstead, No. 70-CV-22-13153, Index No. 109 (First Judicial Dist., Scott Cnty. Feb. 22, 2023) (“When reading sections (a) and (b) together, it is unequivocal that a patient must be admitted within 48-hours [sic] of the Court issuing a warrant or order committing the patient to the Commissioner. The statute is not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is not ambiguous, and it must be interpreted according to its plain meaning.”); Ly v. Harpstead, No. 70-CV-22-13781, Index No. 65 (First Judicial Dist. Scott Cnty. Dec. 21, 2022) (“When reading subdivision 1(b) in light of subdivision 1(a), the clear and unequivocal relevant time marker for the 48 hours is from the time of commitment, when the court issues the warrant or order committing the patient under subdivision 1(a). Therefore, the statute is not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, and so the statute is interpreted according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of construction.”), appeal dismissed, No. A22-1826, 2023 WL 2661371 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 7, 2023), review granted, (Minn. May 31, 2023); see In the Matter of the Civil Commitments of Christodoulou, Elm, and Hassan, Nos. A17-1312, 1314, and 1315, 2018 WL 1145892, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Mar. 5, 2018) (understanding the 48-hour rule as running from date of commitment and not when treatment facilities first become available). If there are cases interpreting the 48-hour rule's original 2013 version to begin running based on a different, later event, the Commissioner has not cited them. Nor has independent research located such a case.

During the 2023 regular session, the legislature amended the 48-hour rule in § 253B.10, subdiv. 1. As amended, the statute includes a new subsection (e) that reads: “Patients described in paragraph (b) must be admitted to a state-operated treatment program within 48 hours of the Office of Medical Director, under section 246.018, or a designee determining that a medically appropriate bed is available. This paragraph expires on June 30, 2025.” 2023 Minn. Laws c. 61, art. 4, § 7. The amendment deleted the prior version of the 48-hour rule that appeared at the end of subdivision 1(b). Id. The amendment was effective May 25, 2023. See Chairse v. Minn. Dep't of Hum. Servs., No. 23-cv-355 (ECT/ECW), 2023 WL 5984251, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2023) (explaining determination of amendment's effective date). According to Mr. Dalen, this amendment was intended to counter criticism and legal challenges arising from the Commissioner's failure to comply with the 48-hour rule's 2013 version. Am. Compl. [ECF No. 10] ¶¶ 510.

II Relevant Facts Regarding Mr. Dalen

Mr Dalen's central allegation is that he-among numerous others in Minnesota- was injured by a violation of the 48-hour rule. That is, Mr. Dalen claims to have been jailed while under a commitment order falling within one of the four prioritized-patient categories of § 253B.10, subdiv.1(b), and he claims the Commissioner failed to admit him to a state-operated treatment program within 48 hours of the court's entry of his commitment order. The operative Amended Complaint alleges this theory generally in several paragraphs. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 6, 8, 12, 16, 39.

The Amended Complaint alleges facts specifically regarding Mr. Dalen in one paragraph:

Plaintiff Kyle[] Dalen is an individual and a resident of Dakota County, Minnesota. Mr. Dalen suffers from antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and chemical dependency. Mr. Dalen was initially committed to the custody of the Commissioner by a November 3, 2022, court order. On April 4, 2023-while Mr. Dalen was still committed to the Commissioner's custody-he was arrested, jailed, and charged in Stearns County criminal file No. 73-CR-23-2528. Mr. Dalen had not received any treatment since the court's November 3 order. Following an April

...