Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The case concerns a stipulated class-action settlement agreement and a comprehensive plan designed to improve services and compliance at state-operated locations serving people with developmental disabilities and severe behavioral problems or other qualifying conditions. In a December 2019 order, the court determined that the agreement did not subject the Forensic Mental Health Program and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center to the agreement’s strict prohibition on restraint except in extreme emergencies. The court nevertheless found that the agreement required restraint use at those locations to reflect current best practices and ordered an external review.

Defendants appealed the December 2019 order and moved for a stay. The court denied that earlier motion. The court then directed defendants to engage Dr. Gary LaVigna to conduct the external review. Defendants appealed that directive and filed the motion addressed in this order, seeking to stay their obligation to engage Dr. LaVigna and pay for the review while the appeal proceeded.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), a court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction while an appeal is pending. The court considers four factors: (1) whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal; (2) whether it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (3) whether a stay would substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. The party seeking the stay bears a heavy burden, and the court identified likelihood of success and irreparable harm as the two most important factors.

Court’s analysis

Likelihood of success. Defendants argued that the settlement agreement did not authorize requiring them to pay for an external review outside the facilities covered by the agreement and that the court lacked authority to order them to pay. The court rejected those arguments, relying in part on its earlier analysis. It stated that external review was not a new concept and had not been limited to the agreement’s defined facilities. The court also concluded that allowing defendants to select someone other than the previously appointed monitor did not eliminate the court’s authority to require the review or defendants’ obligation to pay for it. The court found that defendants had not shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal.

Irreparable harm. Defendants argued that denying a stay would effectively deny appellate rights and impose a financial burden. The court found that these arguments were substantially the same as arguments it had previously rejected and concluded that defendants had not shown irreparable harm.

Injury to interested parties. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the court could pay for the review itself and their contention that there was no specific evidence of harm because the court did not know whether defendants were currently using restraint improperly. The court noted that internal reporting had not always been accurate and that past external reviews had found areas of noncompliance, including multiple violations involving restraint and seclusion at the two facilities. The court therefore found that this factor weighed against granting a stay.

Public interest. Defendants argued that a stay would serve the public interest because the review would be expensive and they had recently paid $60,000 for a separate external review. The court recognized that minimizing public expense was relevant but stated that it also had an obligation to ensure that the settlement agreement, which sought to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities throughout the state, was fully and promptly implemented. The court found this factor evenly balanced.

Disposition

The court concluded that three of the four factors weighed against a stay and that the remaining factor was neutral. The court held that a stay pending appeal was not warranted and DENIED Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal.