Opinion
A22-0769
02-06-2023
Terrance Friend, Appellant, v. Jodi Harpstead, et al., Respondents.
Carlton County District Court File No. 09-CV-22-185.
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jeffrey M. Bryan, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 1996, appellant Terrance Friend was indefinitely civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).
2. Between 2013 and 2019, Friend filed at least four separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus, which were all denied. Friend v. Jesson, A13-2098 (Minn.App. June 23, 2014), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 16, 2014); Friend v. Piper, No. A16-1699 (Minn.App. Mar. 15, 2017) (order op.), rev. denied (Minn. May 30, 2017); Friend v. Piper, No. 17-CV-4356, 2018 WL 4011568 (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2018); Friend v. Harpstead, No. A20-0288 (Minn.App. Aug. 3, 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2020).
3. On February 1, 2020, Friend filed the instant petition, arguing that his confinement is unconstitutional for the following six reasons: (1) it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, his protections against double-jeopardy, and the doctrines of separation of powers and stare decisis; (2) he does not have a mental illness and does not pose a danger to the community; (3) he is not treated as a patient, is not receiving appropriate treatment, and MSOP is not a legitimate treatment facility; (4) he has been harmed by changes made to MSOP since his initial commitment; (5) the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minnesota Statutes sections 253B.01-24 (2022), is unconstitutional and violates his rights; and (6) the conditions of his confinement are unconstitutional. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Friend's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Friend appeals.
4. A writ of habeas corpus is a statutory civil remedy by which a person can obtain relief from unlawful restraint. See Minn. Stat. §§ 589.01-.35 (2022). A petitioner bears the burden of showing the illegality of his detention. Case v. Pung, 413 N.W.2d 261, 262 (Minn.App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 24, 1987). A district court's findings in support of denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "will be upheld if reasonably supported by the evidence." Bedell v. Roy, 853 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Minn.App. 2014) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 2014). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. Id.
5. A "petitioner does not have the right to appear and be heard as a matter of course," State ex rel. Dinneen v. Tahash, 136 N.W.2d 847, 852 (Minn. 1965), and an evidentiary hearing is necessary only when "material facts are in dispute that have not been resolved in the proceedings . . . and that must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits." Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn. 1995).
6. The doctrine of res judicata "applies to all claims actually litigated as well as to all claims that could have been litigated in the earlier proceeding." State v. Joseph, 636 N.W.2d 322, 327 (Minn. 2001). Res judicata bars subsequent claims "when (1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; [and] (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter." Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 840 (Minn. 2004); see also Thompson v. Wood, 272 N.W.2d 357, 358 (Minn. 1978) (applying res judicata to bar subsequent habeas corpus claim).
7. All six of Friend's instant claims were either raised or could have been raised in the 2013 petition. They involve the same factual circumstances and the same parties,resulted in a final adjudication on the merits, and were fully and fairly litigated. The district court did not err in denying Friend's habeas corpus petition without a hearing.
The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services was a party in each of Friend's prior habeas petitions. Friend also named MSOP's executive director and facility director as respondents in the current petition. The named respondents in this matter constitute the same parties or their privies as in the prior petitions.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The district court's denial of the petition 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.