Lindsey v. Harpstead

Background

In 2006, Lindsey was civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person. The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected his challenges to the evidence supporting the commitment and to whether a less restrictive treatment program was available. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review on July 17, 2007.

Lindsey later sought to vacate the commitment order under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of that motion in 2011, ruling that his arguments were either required to be raised before Minnesota’s Special Review Board or were untimely. Lindsey also petitioned the Special Review Board in 2015 and 2018 for transfer to community preparation services, provisional discharge, or full discharge. The Board denied both petitions, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.

Lindsey filed this federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 14, 2024, and filed an amended petition on July 12, 2024. His four claims were: (1) that his 2006 commitment violated the constitutional bans on double jeopardy and ex post facto laws; (2) that the Special Review Board lacked jurisdiction and violated the Minnesota Constitution; (3) that the Board acted without authority under Minnesota law; and (4) that the Minnesota Court of Appeals made an error in its 2011 decision that should have supported his discharge.

Claims Based on State Law

The court held that claims 2 and 3 raised only issues of Minnesota law. Federal review under Section 2254 is limited to custody that violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Because these claims alleged violations of the Minnesota Constitution, Minnesota statutes, or the Board’s authority under Minnesota law, the court held that federal habeas relief was unavailable and dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Lindsey did not specifically object to the magistrate judge’s analysis of claims 2 and 3. The court therefore adopted that analysis and rejected Lindsey’s restatement of the claims as insufficiently specific objections.

Timeliness of Claims 1 and 4

The court held that claim 1 was barred by the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Lindsey’s 2006 commitment became final on October 15, 2007, after the time to seek review by the United States Supreme Court expired. He therefore had until October 15, 2007, to file this federal petition, but did not file it until June 14, 2024. His state-court collateral attack, filed in May 2010, did not pause the limitations period because the federal period had already expired.

Lindsey argued that the period should instead begin when he discovered in 2010 that his attorneys had not raised the claim. The court rejected that argument because Lindsey said he had asked an attorney to raise the double-jeopardy issue in 2006, showing that he knew of the claim at that time. The court also rejected equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline when a person has pursued rights diligently but extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing. The court found that Lindsey had not acted diligently. It also held that the actual-innocence exception did not apply to a challenge to civil commitment.

The court held that claim 4 was also untimely. The facts underlying that claim would have been known when the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued its decision on May 23, 2011, so the limitations period expired in 2012. Lindsey’s 2024 petition was therefore filed about 12 years late. The court again rejected his arguments for equitable tolling and the actual-innocence exception.

Disposition

Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and overruled Lindsey’s objections. The court dismissed Lindsey’s petition and amended petition. It denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot and did not grant a certificate of appealability. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.