Opinion
A20-1176
04-20-2021
Christopher Krych, Appellant, v. Department of Human Services, et al., Respondents.
ORDER OPINION
Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-20-856 Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Christopher Krych was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person in 2007. On December 30, 2019, Krych filed a petition for a reduction in custody with the Minnesota Department of Human Services (the department). The petition indicated that Krych sought to be discharged from civil commitment and requested a hearing before a special review board to consider his request. Along with the petition, Krych included a letter directed to the department's legal-services coordinator, which requested that a special review board hold a hearing on his petition within six months of its filing.
2. In February 2020, Krych filed an action in district court seeking an alternative writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (the commissioner). Citing Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2 (2020), Krych asked the district court to order the department to provide a hearing before a special review board within 60 days of the district court's order. The commissioner moved to dismiss Krych's petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The commissioner argued that mandamus was inappropriate because Minn. Stat. § 253D.27 (2020) did not impose any requirement that a special-review-board hearing be held within a specific amount of time after the petition was filed. In response to the commissioner's motion to dismiss, Krych moved to amend his mandamus petition, seeking to proceed under a different legal theory. He argued that, under Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a) (2020), the department was required to schedule a special-review-board hearing within six months of receiving a petition for a reduction in custody.
3. The district court analyzed his motion under Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a), and granted the commissioner's motion to dismiss in an August 2020 order. The district court rejected Krych's argument that the department was required to hold a special-review-board hearing within six months of receiving a petition, determining that Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a), did not require a hearing to be held within any particular time frame. Because the statute did not impose any such mandate, the district court concluded that dismissal was appropriate.
4. On appeal, Krych challenges the district court's dismissal of his mandamus action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 836 (Minn. 2004). A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim as long as it is possible, on any evidence that might be produced, to grant the relief requested. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn. 2014).
5. Mandamus relief is "an extraordinary legal remedy." Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 171 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted). Mandamus may be used either "to compel the performance of an official duty clearly imposed by law" or "to compel the exercise of discretion when that exercise is required by law." Id. For a petitioner to obtain mandamus relief, he must show three elements: (1) that the defendant "failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law," (2) that the defendant's actions caused the petitioner to suffer a public wrong, and (3) that no other adequate legal remedy exists. N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2004).
6. We agree with the district court that Krych has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he has not shown that the commissioner failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law. The procedures under which a sexually dangerous person may petition for a hearing before a special review board are governed by Minn. Stat. § 253D.27. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo. Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016). The goal of statutory interpretation is to determine the intent of the legislature. Id. When a statute's language is unambiguous, we apply the plain language of the statute. Id.
7. Under Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, a person civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person and seeking a reduction in custody must file a petition with the special review board authorized under section 253B.18, subdivision 4c (2020). Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2. A "reduction in custody" refers to a transfer from a secure treatment facility, a provisional discharge, or a discharge from commitment. Id., subd. 1(b). After the committed person files a petition, the special review board holds a hearing on the petition and issues a report and recommendation. Id., subd. 3(a).
8. The statute provides the following directive for the special-review-board hearing: "The special review board shall hold a hearing on each petition before issuing a recommendation and report . . . ." Id. Nowhere does the statute require that the hearing be held within six months of—or within any specific time of—the filing of the petition. See id.
9. Krych cites Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a), for the proposition that the special review board is required to hold a hearing on a petition for a reduction in custody within six months of the filing of the petition. This statutory provision is referenced in Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2, but it imposes no such requirement. Section 253D.27, subdivision 2 provides, in relevant part: "A petition for a reduction in custody . . . may be filed by either the committed person or by the executive director and must be filed with and considered by a panel of the special review board authorized under section 253B .18, subdivision 4c." (Emphasis added.) The reference to section 253B.18, subdivision 4c, simply identifies the special review board that hears petitions filed under Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2. And, as the district court correctly concluded, section 253B.18, subdivision 4c(a), does not include any requirement for the special review board to hold a hearing on a petition within a specified period of time. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a).
The special review board authorized under Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a), also hears petitions filed by persons who have been civilly committed as persons who have a mental illness and are dangerous to the public. Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subds. 4c(c), 5 (2020). --------
10. Krych also cites other provisions in Minn. Stat. § 253D.27 that impose time limitations for various procedures for the special-review-board hearing process, and he argues that requiring a petition to be heard within six months of its filing is necessary to give effect to all parts of the statute. His argument is unpersuasive. The provisions that Krych cites unambiguously provide for a specific time frame within which certain actions must be taken, but the plain language of the statute imposes no requirement for when a hearing on a petition must be held. And we "cannot add words to an unambiguous statute under the guise of statutory interpretation." 328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Props. Grp., LLC, 871 N.W.2d 745, 750 (Minn. 2015).
11. Because there is no statutory mandate to hold a special-review-board hearing within a specific time after a petition is filed, the commissioner did not have an official duty clearly imposed by law. In the absence of such a duty, the district court properly dismissed Krych's mandamus action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: April 20, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Jeanne M. Cochran