Cited by

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Commitment of Lonergan, (quotation omitted).

to raise nontransfer, nondischarge claims.” WL 1233562, at *4 (Minn. App. Mar.

(holding claims that lack procedures under commitment act may be brought under rule 60.02).

In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan

(holding that, because “the commitment act does not provide any procedures for a patient indeterminately committed as an SDP or SPP to raise .

In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan , , 643 (Minn. 2012).

1(b) (“For the purposes of this section, ‘ reduction in custody ’ means transfer out of a secure treatment facility, a provisional discharge, or a discharge from commitment.”); see also In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan , -42 (Minn. 2012) (“The Commitment Act only provides relief to a patient indetermin ately committed as an SDP or SPP through a transfer or a discharge.”).

4 We analyze an ineffective-assistance-of- 3 The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[a]ttorney miscon duct has been characterized as ‘excusable neglect’ under clause (a), to provi de a basis for vacation of a dismissal, but only if the motion is

Coker , d at 489 (rules); In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan , , 639 (Minn. 2012) (statutes); In re Guardianship of Welch , , 56 (Minn. App. 2004) (caselaw).

In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan , -42 (Minn. 2012) ; see Minn. Stat. § 253D, subd.

“The Commitment Act only provides relief to a patient indeterminately committed as an SDP or SPP through a transfer or a discharge.” -42 (Minn. 2012).

to raise nontransfer, nondischarge claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel.”

In addition, the district court’s alternative rationale that Daywitt’s exclusive remedy is a petition for discharge filed pursuant to the MCTA is supported by caselaw stating that “the [MCTA] is the ‘exclusive remedy’ for patients committed as SDPs and SPPs seeking a transfer or discharge.” see also Hand, ____ N.W.2d at ____, 2016 WL 1397100, at *3-4; Moen, d at 45.

the ordinary rules of civil procedure apply [to a claim] unless clearly inconsistent with the statute.” (quoting Thunderbird Motel Corp. v. Cnty.

Minnesota courts have consistently held that civil commitment of sex offenders has dual nonpunitive purposes: “(1) protection of the public, and (2) rehabilitation of the patient.”

In In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan, the supreme court determined that the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 253B, and rule 60.02 “are not wholly inconsistent” and that “there exists a narrow class of claims that may be 4 brought under Rule 60.02 by a patient indeterminately committed as an SDP.”

The district court relied on the supreme court’s recent opinion in

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(explaining that Rule 60.02 can be used to challenge ineffective assistance of counsel because "the Commitment Act does not provide any procedures for a patient indeterminately committed as an SDP or SPP to raise nontransfer, nondischarge claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel”).