Opinion
A21-0715
02-01-2022
Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, v. Jodi Harpstead, as Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-21-181
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
RENEE L. WORKE JUDGE.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Peter Gerard Lonergan is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). In September 2020, Lonergan petitioned a special review board to reduce his custody. Lonergan then petitioned the district court for a writ of mandamus compelling respondent Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (commissioner) to hold a special-review-board hearing on his custody-reduction petition "within a reasonable time" on the theory that the Constitution requires a hearing within 90 days.
2. An individual civilly committed to the MSOP may petition a special review board for a reduction in custody, and the board must hold a hearing on that petition. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subds. 2, 3 (2020). The commissioner establishes special-review-board panels, which must meet at least every six months or at the call of the commissioner. Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4c(a) (2020).
3. The district court denied Lonergan's mandamus petition because the statute does not require the commissioner to call a hearing within a specified period and because Lonergan has an adequate remedy at law. See Minn. Stat. §§ 586.01, .02 (2020) (addressing mandamus). Lonergan appealed. We reach the same conclusion as the district court, rejecting Lonergan's arguments challenging the denial.
4. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved to compel performance only of those duties that are "so clear and complete as not to admit any reasonable controversy." Day v. Wright Cnty., 391 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn.App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 24, 1986). Although the statute at issue affords a petitioner the right to a hearing, it includes no express deadline. See Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 3(a). Lonergan offers no legal authority or analytical support for his supposition that the Constitution requires a hearing within 90 days. Unless a statute that requires an official to act specifies the time to act, the official must act "within a reasonable time." State ex rel. Laurisch v. Pohl, 8 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. 1943).
5. Because the generalized duty to act "within a reasonable time" does not establish when the commissioner must hold a hearing on Lonergan's custody-reduction petition, there is no duty to hold that hearing within the 90-day period asserted by Lonergan, and mandamus is not an available remedy to compel it to do so.
6. Lonergan also argues that the district court should have afforded him leeway on the question of jurisdiction as a pro se party. However, this argument is not supported by the record.
7. In general, a court will not modify ordinary rules and procedures because a pro se party lacks the skills and knowledge of an attorney. See Gruenhagen v. Larson, 246 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 1976).
8. The district court determined that the commissioner "was not served with process" by Lonergan. The district court noted that the commissioner responded to Lonergan's arguments for the first time during oral argument to that court. The fact that the district court's "findings here [were] in recognition of the fact that both parties argued the merits of the case at oral argument" suggests that the district court afforded Lonergan a tremendous amount of leeway.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order 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.