In re Civil Commitment of Hand holds that an SDP is barred from seeking relief from commitment through rule 60.02 under the Karsjens order because of the "exclusive transfer-or-discharge of remedies of the MCTA." 878 N.W.2d 503, 508-09 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. June 21, 2016).

The third factor is the primary factor. In re Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Minn.App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2016).

"Judicial comity is the respect a court of one state or jurisdiction shows to another state or jurisdiction in giving effect to the other's laws and judicial decisions." In re Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. June 21, 2016) (quotations omitted).

Yet, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held the judicial appeal panel process to be “the exclusive remedy for patients committed as SDPs and SPP seeking a transfer or discharge[, ]” so they cannot seek to vacate the commitment order under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. In re Lonergan, 811 N.W.2d 635, 642 (Minn. 2012); see also In re Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Minn.Ct.App. 2016). Without a state process to exhaust his specific claim, Rick may properly bring it to federal court.

In re Lonergan, 811 N.W.2d 635, 642 (Minn. 2012); see also In re Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). Without a state process to exhaust his specific claim, Rick may properly bring it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Dixon v. Dormire, 263 F.3d 774, 777 (8th Cir. 2001) (explaining "the exhaustion doctrine turns on an inquiry into what procedures are 'available' under state law.") (internal quotations omitted).

"We review a district court's application of the principle of comity for an abuse of discretion." In re Civ. Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn.App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2016). We do not

Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); see In re Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn.App. 2016) (citing this aspect of Thiele in a civil-commitment appeal), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2016).

"We review a district court's application of the principle of comity for an abuse of discretion." In re Civ. Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn.App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2016). A court may decline to recognize a foreign judgment as a matter of comity if it is "contrary to the public policy of Minnesota." Nicol v. Tanner, 256 N.W.2d 796, 802 n.11 (Minn. 1976).

"We review a district court's application of the principle of comity for an abuse of discretion." In re Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn.App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2016). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record."

Thus, we need not address the remaining Dahlberg factors.In re Commitment of Hand, 878 N.W.2d 503, 509 n.4 (Minn.App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2016). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Douglas Malark's motion for temporary injunctive relief.