Stabnow v. Lourey
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:19-cv-01539
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Stabnow v. Lourey, Judge Magnuson dismissed Stabnow’s petitions without prejudice, denied summary judgment, and refused a certificate of appealability because state remedies had not been exhausted.
Robert Lee Stabnow’s federal challenge to his commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program was denied and dismissed without prejudice. His motion for summary judgment was denied, and no certificate of appealability issued. The order required him to present his claims to Minnesota state courts first.
What happened
In Stabnow v. Lourey, Robert Lee Stabnow challenged his commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, seeking a declaration that the commitment violated his constitutional rights. He argued that Minnesota courts could not fairly review his claims because judges are elected and allegedly biased against people committed to the program.
The court concluded that Stabnow had to present his claims to Minnesota courts before seeking federal relief. It also said the Eighth Circuit had already rejected his constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s civil-commitment law and that the alleged treatment at the facility did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The court denied and dismissed both petitions without prejudice, denied his motion for summary judgment, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Judge Magnuson adopted Magistrate Judge Leung’s report and recommendation, while the October 11, 2019 order stated that Stabnow’s petitions were denied and dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Stabnow v. Lourey · No. 0:19-cv-01539
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 11, 2019
Background
Robert Lee Stabnow was committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. He had challenged his commitment several times in state court. In this federal case, he sought a declaration vacating his commitment based on alleged constitutional violations.
The court reviewed Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s September 23, 2019 Report and Recommendation after Stabnow filed objections. The recommendation advised denying Stabnow’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his petition and amended petition. The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation and adopted it.
Claims and analysis
Stabnow clarified that he was not challenging only his original commitment proceeding. He argued instead that the Minnesota laws governing his commitment were unconstitutional on their face and as applied to him. He also argued that he should not have to exhaust state-court remedies because elected state judges, along with the legislative and executive branches, were allegedly biased against people committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.
The court rejected that argument. It stated that the Eighth Circuit had already upheld the Minnesota civil-commitment statute against the constitutional challenge Stabnow raised, and that the court was bound by that decision. The court also rejected Stabnow’s broad challenge to the fairness of Minnesota’s judiciary, stating that the challenge relied on innuendo and supposition and that the court would not presume Minnesota judges were unfair or biased. It therefore concluded that Stabnow had to bring his claims to the state courts first.
Stabnow also argued that his commitment was punishment barred by the constitutional protection against being punished twice for the same conduct and that it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court said that the treatment he described appeared to concern a separate lawsuit and alleged conditions at the facility. Even accepting his description as true, the court concluded that it did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. It stated that any claim under the Minnesota Constitution also had to be presented to state courts first.
Disposition
On October 11, 2019, Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court ordered that the petition and amended petition were denied and dismissed without prejudice. It denied Stabnow’s motion for summary judgment. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Stabnow had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.
The order’s final disposition states that both petitions were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling based solely on that dismissal language.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.