Opinion
A22-0211
07-12-2022
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeffrey David Holmgren.
Commitment Appeal Panel - CAP File No. AP12-9079
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
DENISE REILLY JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In May 2011, the Chisago County District Court indeterminately committed appellant Jeffrey David Holmgren as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) to a secure treatment facility in St. Peter, Minnesota. In 2012, Holmgren petitioned for a transfer to a less restrictive facility known as Community Preparation Services (CPS). The Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) Special Review Board denied his petition. Holmgren petitioned for a rehearing and reconsideration. In July 2015, Holmgren had progressed in his treatment plan and the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP) granted his petition to transfer to CPS. In September 2020, the CAP found that Holmgren continued to progress in his treatment and issued an order granting Holmgren a provisional discharge into community living. In July 2021, the MSOP executive director revoked Holmgren's provisional discharge into community living and ordered him to return to a secure treatment facility. The reason for revocation was that "Holmgren departed from his provisional discharge conditions[,] and he is exhibiting behaviors that may be dangerous to himself or others."
2. In August 2021, Holmgren filed a motion for contempt against the Commissioner of Human Services (the commissioner). Holmgren argued that the commissioner was in contempt of the CAP's July 2015 transfer order because the executive director ordered him to return to a secure treatment facility and not to CPS after the revocation of his provisional discharge. The CAP held a hearing on Holmgren's motion. Following the hearing, the CAP denied Holmgren's motion for contempt, finding that the commissioner was not in contempt of a prior order because the July 2015 transfer order granting his discharge to CPS "was complied with and is no longer in effect or was superseded by the 2018 Order for Provisional Discharge." Holmgren appealed the denial of his motion for contempt to this court.
3. A court's exercise of its civil contempt power requires a party to seek the court's assistance to enforce the party's rights. Hopp v. Hopp, 156 N.W.2d 212, 214 (Minn. 1968). Civil contempt is "designed to induce future performance of a valid court order, not to punish for past failure to perform." Meyer v. Meyer, 492 N.W.2d 272, 273-74 (Minn.App. 1992). Thus, an exercise of civil contempt powers requires that the court order "clearly define[] the acts to be performed by a party to the proceedings." Hopp, 156 N.W.2d at 214; see also Carstedt v. Grindeland, 365 N.W.2d 347, 349 (Minn.App. 1985) ("One essential prerequisite is that the prior decree or order sought to be enforced by contempt must clearly define the acts to be performed by the alleged contemnor."). We review the denial to hold a party in civil contempt under an abuse-of-d iscretion standard. Minn. State Bar Ass'n v. Divorce Assistance Ass'n, 248 N.W.2d 733, 740 (Minn. 1976).
4. The basis for Holmgren's contempt motion is that the commissioner violated his 2015 transfer order to the less secure facility, CPS. The CAP denied the contempt motion, concluding that the commissioner complied with the 2015 order because the commissioner ordered Holmgren's transfer to CPS. The CAP's order denying the motion for contempt is supported by the record. The 2015 transfer order approved Holmgren's transfer to the less secure facility of CPS under what is now Minn. Stat. § 253D.31 (2020). The commissioner fully complied with this order by later granting Holmgren's transfer to CPS. A short time later, Holmgren transferred to CPS where he remained until the CAP granted a provisional discharge into community living in 2021.
5. Civil contempt is an extreme remedy that is to be exercised with caution. Hampton v. Hampton, 229 N.W.2d 139, 140-41 (Minn. 1975). This matter does not present such extreme factual circumstances warranting an order for civil contempt. The facts in the record show that the commissioner fully performed her duty to transfer Holmgren to CPS per the 2015 transfer order. While Holmgren now argues that he should be allowed to return to CPS and not a secure facility following the revocation of his provisional discharge, a motion for contempt is not the proper remedy for the relief sought. Instead, Holmgren may rely on other statutory processes to request reconsideration of the decision or to request a reduction in custody. See Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.30, subd. 6 (appealing revocation of provisional discharge), .27 (petition for reduction in custody) (2020).
6. For the reasons above, we conclude that the CAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Holmgren's motion for contempt.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Commitment Appeal Panel's dismissal 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.