Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Donovan Frank
- 0:09-cv-01775
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Frank denied defendants’ request to pause their obligations while their appeal proceeded.
The defendants remained required to carry out the external review and reporting obligations concerning mechanical-restraint use at the Forensic Mental Health Program and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center while their appeal proceeded. The ruling also affected the plaintiffs and vulnerable people covered by the settlement agreement, whose interests the court said could be harmed by further delay.
What happened
In Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, the defendants asked the court to pause obligations imposed by a December 2019 order while they appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Those obligations concerned an external review of mechanical-restraint use at the Forensic Mental Health Program and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. The defendants had already nominated potential reviewers, so the request concerned the remaining review and reporting obligations.
The defendants argued that they were likely to win their appeal, would face financial and other harm without a pause, and that a pause would not substantially harm others or the public interest. The plaintiffs opposed the request and argued that further delay could harm vulnerable people and permit continued noncompliance. The court applied four factors governing requests to pause an order during an appeal.
The court found that the defendants had not shown a strong likelihood of success or sufficiently serious, immediate harm. It found that pausing the order could harm vulnerable people because the court could not verify whether restraint use followed current best practices without the external review. The public-interest factor was neutral, but Judge Donovan W. Frank concluded that the overall factors did not justify a pause and denied the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal.
The detailed version
- Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:09-cv-01775
- Donovan Frank
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
The court had approved a stipulated class-action settlement agreement and a related Comprehensive Plan of Action intended to measure and improve compliance. In a December 18, 2019 order, the court determined that the agreement did not subject the Forensic Mental Health Program (formerly the Minnesota Security Hospital) or Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center to the agreement’s strict prohibition on restraints in all but extreme emergencies. It nevertheless concluded that a separate provision required restraint use at those locations to reflect current best practices.
The December order required the defendants to arrange an external review of mechanical-restraint use at both locations. The review was to quantify the type, frequency, and duration of restraint and identify whether positive supports were attempted first. The defendants also had to submit an initial report before March 13, 2020, unless the court set a different date, followed by a final report after a comment period. The defendants fulfilled the first obligation by nominating two possible reviewers after they and the plaintiffs could not agree on one.
The defendants appealed the December 2019 order to the Eighth Circuit and moved to stay—temporarily pause—the remaining obligations during the appeal. The plaintiffs opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), which permits a court to suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction while an appeal is pending. It considered four factors: whether the moving party is likely to succeed on appeal, whether it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. The party requesting a stay bears a heavy burden, and the court described the likelihood-of-success and irreparable-harm factors as the most important.
Court’s analysis
The defendants argued that the external-review requirement was limited to facilities covered by the agreement; that the agreement did not require restraint use at any location to reflect current best practices; that restraint use at Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center could not be reviewed because the defendants did not license that location; that the December order improperly placed the burden of showing compliance on them; and that the order violated due process.
The court rejected these arguments for purposes of the stay request. It noted that external review had previously been used and had not been limited to the facilities defined in the agreement. The court also relied on its earlier determination that reviewing restraint use at the two locations was appropriate and on its December 2019 conclusion that restraint use there must reflect current best practices. It further concluded that additional reporting was consistent with the agreement and prior court orders. The court found the due-process argument without merit because the defendants had received opportunities to address the scope of the review and the related restraint issues.
On irreparable harm, the defendants pointed to appellate-rights concerns, public expense, and interference with state management of settings serving vulnerable populations. The court acknowledged that the defendants would incur expenses, but found they had not shown that the harm was sufficiently serious and immediate to require a stay. The court also considered the defendants’ history of delays and compliance problems.
On injury to other interested parties, the court found that this factor weighed against a stay. It reasoned that every improper use of restraint could directly harm vulnerable people and that the court could not verify whether restraint use complied with current best practices without an external review.
The court found the public-interest factor neutral. It recognized that denying a stay would require public spending on an expert, but also emphasized the court’s obligation to ensure that the settlement agreement was fully implemented and that the lives of individuals with disabilities were improved without delay.
Disposition
The court concluded that the defendants had not shown that three of the four factors—including the two most important factors—favored a stay. It therefore declined to stay the matter pending resolution of the appeal and ordered that the defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, Document No. 784, was DENIED. Judge Donovan W. Frank signed the order on February 4, 2020.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.