Giffen v. Warden Federal Medical Center Rochester

Background

Todd Giffen is civilly committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 after a finding that mental illness made his release a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. He is detained at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Giffen filed a habeas petition seeking immediate transfer to a less restrictive facility, arguing that the facility’s conditions are too much like prison and that he is a civil detainee committed for treatment rather than punishment.

The court reviewed the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The opinion notes that Giffen did not bring the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but that those rules may still be applied.

Jurisdiction and confinement conditions

Giffen expressly stated that he was challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the legality of his confinement. The court explained that Eighth Circuit precedent does not permit conditions-of-confinement claims to be brought through a habeas petition. Because Giffen used the wrong procedural vehicle, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

The court also considered whether to treat the filing as a non-habeas civil complaint. It declined to do so because the petition did not plausibly allege that the conditions at the facility were unlawful. The court rejected Giffen’s theory that, because he is a patient rather than a prisoner, his confinement could not be more restrictive than conditions at an ordinary hospital. It stated that civil commitment differs from ordinary hospitalization and that federal officials have legitimate medical and institutional interests in maintaining safe and healthy conditions, even when those interests limit rights a person would otherwise possess. The petition did not plausibly allege that the conditions exceeded constitutional limits.

Other requests

Giffen did not pay the filing fee or apply for permission to proceed without paying it. Instead, he asked the court to declare filing-fee requirements categorically unconstitutional. The court called that argument frivolous, denied the motion, and cautioned that future matters filed in the District of Minnesota without either the required fee or an application to proceed without payment would not be considered on the merits.

Giffen also requested appointed counsel. The court recommended denying that request because his claims could not properly be litigated through habeas proceedings, so appointing counsel would provide little practical benefit. The court further recommended denying his request for immediate transfer or release because it recommended dismissing the action.

Future filings and recommendation

The court noted that this was at least Giffen’s eighth habeas proceeding since 2022. It cautioned that access to the courts may be restricted if he abuses that access through frivolous, malicious, duplicative, or vexatious habeas petitions. Any claim that he should be released because he is no longer dangerous, the court stated, must be raised through a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) in the district where the civil-commitment proceedings occurred. A claim challenging confinement conditions must instead be brought through a non-habeas civil complaint.

The report and recommendation recommended that the matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. It separately recommended that Giffen’s motion to waive or challenge filing fees as unconstitutional be DENIED, his motion to appoint counsel be DENIED, and his motion for immediate release be DENIED.

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the report and recommendation. The notice states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. A party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report.