Rud v. Johnston

Background

James John Rud and Brian Keith Hausfeld are civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). Both received approval from Minnesota’s Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP) to transfer from the higher-security facility in Moose Lake to Community Preparation Services (CPS), a less-restrictive, unlocked residential facility in St. Peter. Rud’s transfer became effective on June 6, 2022, but he had not been transferred when he filed this action. Hausfeld’s approval became effective on February 9, 2022, and he was transferred more than nine months later.

The plaintiffs alleged that CPS could not accommodate approved transfers because of limited beds and staffing shortages. They sought to represent an awaiting-transfer class and a delayed-transfer class. Their complaint included a request for an order requiring compliance with CAP transfer orders and claims under federal and state procedural and substantive due-process protections.

Rud moved for a temporary restraining order or, alternatively, a preliminary injunction requiring defendants Nancy Johnston, the MSOP Executive Director, and Jodi Harpstead, the Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner, to carry out his CAP transfer order. The defendants opposed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the four factors used for preliminary injunctions in the Eighth Circuit: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.

Evidence. The defendants argued that Rud had not submitted evidence supporting his motion. The court rejected that argument, finding that the plaintiffs’ exhibits, including decisions and filings from related proceedings, together with the defendants’ affidavits, provided enough evidence to analyze the request. The court noted that the parties appeared to agree on the underlying facts.

Substantive due process. The court found that Rud was unlikely to succeed on the substantive due-process claim. It explained that the plaintiffs had not shown a fundamental constitutional right to transfer to CPS, and that delaying transfer because of staffing and physical-capacity limitations was not conduct that “shocks the conscience.” The court also noted that patients could complete Phase III treatment and be discharged without residing at CPS.

Procedural due process. The court found that Rud had a fair chance of succeeding on his procedural due-process claim. Procedural due process protects a person’s protected liberty or property interest from deprivation without adequate procedures. The court relied on Minnesota statutes and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in a prior related proceeding, which established that CAP transfer orders are mandatory and that MSOP staff do not have discretion to ignore them.

The court concluded that Minnesota law created a protected liberty interest in transfer to CPS within a reasonable time after CAP approval. Based on the record, defendants had deprived Rud of that interest by delaying his transfer for nine months without providing meaningful procedures to protect or enforce it. After balancing Rud’s liberty interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the government’s interests, the court found that Rud was likely to succeed on this claim.

The court also addressed a separate procedural due-process theory that residing at CPS was necessary for discharge. It found that theory unlikely to succeed because MSOP patients could complete Phase III at the secure St. Peter facility and did not have to reside at CPS to qualify for provisional discharge or discharge.

Other injunction factors. The court found that Rud was likely to suffer irreparable harm because CPS offered a less-restrictive environment and opportunities, including community outings, that were generally unavailable at the higher-security facilities. The balance of harms favored an injunction because further delays would continue depriving Rud and other awaiting-transfer patients of CPS’s resources, while ordering Rud’s transfer would only marginally increase CPS’s population. The court also found that the public interest favored requiring MSOP to follow the mandatory CAP transfer process.

Bond and disposition

The court waived the security requirement that can accompany a preliminary injunction because defendants had not shown that a wrongful injunction would cause monetary damages and had not requested a bond.

The court GRANTED Rud’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. It ordered defendants to transfer James John Rud to Community Preparation Services pursuant to his CAP transfer order within 15 days of the order. The injunction applied only to Rud, not to the proposed awaiting-transfer class, because the court had not certified the classes. The order remained effective until the action ended or the court ordered otherwise.