Rud v. Johnston

Background

James John Rud is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The Commitment Appeal Panel approved his transfer to Community Preparation Services (CPS), a less restrictive residential MSOP facility, with the transfer order effective June 6, 2022. He had not been transferred because of alleged bed and staffing shortages. The opinion states that patients often wait months or years for transfer.

The court previously granted Rud’s request for a preliminary injunction after finding that he was likely to succeed on a procedural due-process claim. The court concluded that Rud had a right to be transferred within a reasonable time and that defendants had delayed the transfer without providing a meaningful procedure. The injunction ordered defendants to transfer Rud to CPS within fifteen days. The opinion states that the injunction applied only to Rud, not to the separate class represented by Brian Keith Hausfeld.

Motion to Stay

Defendants appealed the preliminary-injunction order to the Eighth Circuit and asked the district court to stay, or pause, the injunction while the appeal proceeded. They argued that the court had improperly treated Rud’s claim as procedural, that Rud could have sought enforcement through a contempt proceeding, and that he had not shown irreparable harm. Defendants also argued that failing to stay the injunction would harm them and that the public interest favored a stay. Rud opposed the motion.

A stay pending appeal is evaluated using four factors: the movant’s likelihood of success on appeal, the risk of irreparable harm without a stay, potential injury to the opposing party, and the public interest. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that one is justified.

Court’s Analysis

The court characterized defendants’ motion as a motion to reconsider the preliminary injunction in another form. It found that defendants had not presented arguments that undermined the earlier analysis and that many of their arguments had already been raised and rejected.

The court again concluded that Rud adequately alleged a procedural-due-process violation. Defendants had not provided a procedure before delaying his transfer from the secured MSOP facility. A contempt proceeding would occur only after the alleged deprivation and therefore was not the pre-deprivation process the court found necessary. The court also found irreparable harm because the time Rud would spend waiting for transfer, and any resulting delay in his eventual discharge, could not be fully compensated with money damages.

The court found that the remaining factors also favored keeping the injunction in place. The injunction required only Rud’s transfer. Although CPS had 145 beds, defendants had filled 130 to maintain an eight-to-one patient-to-staff ratio, so adding Rud would only marginally affect that ratio. The court therefore found the harm to defendants minimal. It also concluded that the public interest favored requiring compliance with the state statutes governing transfer orders and that waiting months or years for transfer was not reasonable.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ Motion to Stay Order Pending Appeal. The preliminary injunction remained in effect, and the order did not impose the same transfer requirement on other MSOP patients.