Dennis D. Linehan, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1584

Dennis D. Linehan, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Department of Human Services,
Respondent.

Filed April 3, 2017
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Carlton County District Court
File No. 09-CV-16-1140

Dennis D. Linehan, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, William Young, Assistant At torney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Bjorkman, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing
that his civil commitment violates his constitutional and statutory rights. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant Dennis D. Linehan has been civilly committed as a sexually dangerous
person (SDP) to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) since 1995 . He has a
lengthy history of sex-related offenses. On June 10, 1965, Linehan kidnapped and killed a
14-year-old girl while attempting to sexually assault her. Linehan was imprisoned after
pleading guilty to kidnapping. Linehan escaped from prison ten years later and sexually
assaulted a 12-year-old girl in Michigan. After serving time for the offense in Michigan,
he returned to prison in Minnesota.
In 1999, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed Linehan’s civil commitment after
rejecting his arguments that the civil-commitment statute deprived him of his due-process
rights and violated the constitutional bans on double jeopardy and ex post facto laws. In
re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867, 869 (Minn. 1999) ( Linehan I). Linehan has since sought
habeas relief in both state and federal court, which was denied. See Linehan v. Milczark,
315 F.3d 920, 927 -29 (8th Cir. 2003) (Linehan II ); Linehan v. Jesson , No. A13 -0891
(Minn. App. Dec. 6, 2013), review denied (Minn. Jan. 29, 2014) (Linehan III).1
On July 1, 2016, Linehan filed the current petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His
petition asserts that his confinement is unconstitutional because it violates due process,

1 Linehan has also initiated actions seeking discharge from MSOP. In 2006, Linehan filed
a petition with the MSOP special review board seeking discharge from his SDP
commitment. Because MSOP’s evaluation did not support either a provision al or full
discharge, Linehan withd rew his petition. In 2010, Linehan moved the district court to
vacate his commitment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(e) -(f). The district court denied the
motion, and this court affirmed the denial. In re Linehan, No. A11-0958 (Minn. App. Nov.
14, 2011).

3
equal protection, and the separation-of-powers doctrine, and constitutes a bill of attainder.
The district court denied the petition, concluding that several of Linehan’s arguments had
previously been rejected and others were not properly before the court because they allege
statutory violations that are not subject to habeas relief. Linehan appeals.
D E C I S I O N
A writ of habeas corpus is a statutory civil remedy that provides “ relief from
imprisonment or restraint.” Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2016). It is not available to “persons
committed or detained by virtue of the final judgment of a compet ent tribunal of civil or
criminal jurisdiction.” Id. To obtain habeas relief, a petitioner “must allege either a lack
of jurisdiction or a violation of a constitutional right.” Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 798 N.W.2d 542, 548 (Minn. App. 2011), aff’d, 825 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2013).
Habeas may not be used to collaterally attack the underlying commitment or for review of
issues previously raised on appeal. Joelson v. O’Keefe, 594 N.W.2d 905, 908 (Minn. App.
1999), review denied (Minn. July 2 8, 1999). We review questions of law presented in a
habeas petition de novo. State ex rel. Guth v. Fabian , 716 N.W.2d 23, 26 (Minn. App.
2006), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2006). “The constitutionality of a statute is a
question of law.” Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 776 (Minn. 2014).
Linehan first contends the district court erred in concluding habeas relief is not
available with respect to claims he has raised in other proceedings. This argument is
unavailing. Appellate c ourts have already rejected Linehan’s arguments that his civil
commitment violates his due -process rights and the constitutional bans against double
jeopardy, ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder. See Linehan I, 594 N.W.2d at 871-76

4
(rejecting the a rguments that Linehan’s civil commitment violated due process and the
constitutional bans on double jeopardy and ex post facto laws); Linehan III, slip op. at 2-3
(rejecting the argument that the civil -commitment statute is an unconstitutional bill of
attainder). Accordingly, he is not entitled to habeas relief based on these claims. Joelson,
594 N.W.2d at 908.
Linehan next argues that habeas relief is warranted because the civil-commitment
statute violates the separation -of-powers doctrine. We disagree. His argument relies on
alleged violations of statutory rights conferred on him by federal and state law. A habeas
petition must allege jurisdictional or constitutional challenges; it cannot be based on
claimed statutory violations. Beaulieu, 798 N.W.2d at 547-48, 551.
Finally, Linehan asserts that he should be discharged from civil commitment
because he does not suffer from a serious mental illness or pose a substantial risk of danger
and because MSOP is no longer providing treatment. But a habeas petition may not be
used to collaterally attack an underlying commitment. Joelson, 594 N.W.2d at 908.
Linehan’s recourse for seeking discharge from his commitment is controlled by the civil-
commitment statute. See Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.27-.36 (2016). In sum, the district court did
not err in denying Linehan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Affirmed.