In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Luis Antonio Serna.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-1492

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Luis Antonio Serna.

Filed March 9, 2026
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Commitment Appeal Panel
File No. AP24-9119

Luis A. Serna, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Katherine Wong, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Direct Care and Treatment Board)

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Annsara Lovejoy Elasky, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.*
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant, who is indeterminately committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP),
challenges the decision of the commitment appeal panel (CAP) to dismiss his petition for
discharge. We affirm.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
FACTS
In 2001, appellant Luis Antonio Serna was indeterminately civilly committed as a
SDP, and has been at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) facility since. Serna
has been diagnosed with Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder, and Other Specified
Personality Disorder, with Antisocial Features. His adult sexual-offending history includes
three convictions and two allegations of offenses against juvenile and adult females.
Since 2013, Serna has declined to participate in treatment at MSOP and has
indicated no intention of participating. His stated reasons for declining treatment include
lack of progress, disagreements with aspects of clinical documentation, and difficulties
with his memory. Serna was also not concerned with recidivism because of his age (76
years old), and he believed that his offending was motivated by “anger and alcohol,” and
those factors are no longer present in his life. But, because Serna has declined treatment,
he “has not discussed his offending behaviors or sexuality,” and has failed to “demonstrate
insight into the motivators for his offending.”
In May 2023, Serna requested a custody reduction or full discharge. The Special
Review Board (SRB) held a hearing before recommending denying Serna’s request based
on his lack of progress in treatment and remaining treatment needs. The SRB stated that
Serna’s history presents a number of factors associated with future risk for reoffending and
he therefore remained an “untreated individual who sexually offended and has not
addressed the issues for which he was civilly committed.”
Serna requested a rehearing and reconsideration of his petition by the CAP. At a
hearing, Serna testified and offered several exhibits, including: (1) a June 6, 2024 treatment
3
report, (2) a June 18, 2024 sexual-violence risk assessment, (3) an April 14, 2025 quarterly
treatment progress report, and (4) a December 30, 2024 mental-health assessment. 1 After
Serna rested, respondent Direct Care and Treatment Executive Board moved to dismiss
Serna’s petition under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(b). Respondent Hennepin County joined the
motion to dismiss.
On August 6, 2025, the CAP granted the motion to dismiss and denied Serna’s
petition. The CAP concluded that Serna failed to meet his burden to support a custody
reduction. The CAP relied on the record showing that “[Serna] has not been participating
in MSOP treatment since 2013.” The CAP did not find evidence of “progress [showing]
. . . that [Serna] no longer requires the security and institutionalization” of MSOP. The
CAP found that the evidence failed to show that Serna could not participate in treatment or
that he was no longer dangerous.
This appeal followed.
DECISION
Serna argues that he is entitled to full discharge from commitment.2 A person who
is committed as a SDP may petition for a reduction in custody, including full discharge.
Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2 (2024). When the SRB recommends denying a

1 These documents are in the record; however, Serna did not provide this court with a
transcript of the hearing. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1 (stating that, if a
transcript is necessary for an appeal, it is duty of appellant to order that transcript).
2 Serna’s petition also included a request for a custody reduction, which the CAP denied.
On appeal, Serna challenges only the denial of his request for full discharge, and our
analysis is limited to that issue. We note, however, that, based on our analysis, Serna also
failed to meet his burden to support a custody reduction.
4
change-in-custody petition, the committed person may seek rehearing and reconsideration
from the CAP. Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(a) (2024). After the committed person has
presented evidence in support of the petition, respondents may move to dismiss the petition,
pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(b). See Coker v. Jesson , 831 N.W.2d 483, 489 (Minn.
2013).
Here, Serna presented a change-in-custody petition, the SRB recommended denying
the petition, and Serna requested a rehearing and reconsideration. After Serna presented
his evidence to the CAP at a hearing, respondents moved to dismiss, and the CAP granted
that motion. This court reviews the CAP’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss de novo.
In re Civ. Commitment of Opiacha, 943 N.W.2d 220, 225 (Minn. App. 2020).
Serna argues that he is entitled to full discharge from civil commitment because
there is no evidence that he cannot control his sexual behavior, his diagnosis of antisocial
behavior does not justify commitment, and “MSOP employees” “arbitrarily re-diagnosed”
him with a paraphilic disorder.
On a petition for discharge or provisional discharge, the committed person “bears
the burden of going forward with the evidence, which means presenting a prima facie case
with competent evidence to show that the person is entitled to the requested relief.” Minn.
Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 2(d) (2024). The burden is a “burden of production,” not persuasion.
Coker, 831 N.W.2d at 490. On a motion to dismiss, at the close of the petitioner’s case,
the CAP must “view the evidence . . . in a light most favorable to the committed person.”
Id. at 491.
5
A person committed as a SDP can be fully discharged if the CAP determines that
he is (1) “capable of making an acceptable adjustment to open society,” (2) “no longer
dangerous to the public,” and (3) “no longer in need of treatment and supervision.” Minn.
Stat. § 253D.31 (2024). In making this determination, the CAP considers “whether specific
conditions exist to provide a reasonable degree of protection to the public and to assist the
committed person in adjusting to the community.” Id. If these specific conditions do not
exist, then the “discharge shall not be granted.” Id. “‘Shall’ is mandatory.” Minn. Stat.
§ 645.44, subd. 16 (2024).
The CAP must apply the statutory criteria in a manner consistent with due-process
protections. Call v. Gomez, 535 N.W.2d 312, 318 (Minn. 1995). These protections are
satisfied when the commitment bears a “reasonable relation” to the purpose for which the
individual was originally committed. Id. at 319. A “reasonable relation” exists if the
committed person continues to (1) “need further inpatient treatment and supervision for his
sexual disorder” and (2) poses a danger to the public. Id.
Here, the CAP determined that, because Serna has declined treatment since 2013,
he remains untreated and a danger to the public. Serna claims that his diagnosis does not
qualify for commitment, but paraphilic disorders and antisocial personality disorders
qualify for commitment. See In re Civ. Commitment of Poole, 921 N.W.2d 62, 68-69
(Minn. App. 2018) (affirming denial of discharge from MSOP when committed person
failed to establish that he no longer needed treatment for his “paraphilic disorder” and, as
such, remained a danger to the public), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2019); In re Linehan,
594 N.W.2d 867, 878 (Minn. 1999) (upholding commitment as SDP when offender was
6
diagnosed with “ antisocial personality disorder”). In his reply brief, Serna claims that
“MSOP employees” “arbitrarily re- diagnosed” him with a paraphilic disorder. But he
provides no support for that assertion. Serna’s diagnoses are those for which commitment
is justified.
Serna also argues that he can control his behavior, but Serna’s exhibits at the hearing
show that he has failed to engage in treatment. A report noted that, because Serna does not
participate in treatment, it was difficult to conduct an accurate assessment of his risk of sex
reoffending. Without treatment, and without an accurate assessment, the record does not
support Serna’s claim that he is able to control his sexual behavior. Serna argues that there
is “no evidence he cannot control” his sexual behaviors. But it was his burden to provide
evidence to support his claim that he is able to control his sexual behaviors. Based on this
record, we conclude that the CAP did not err by granting respondents’ motion to dismiss
Serna’s petition for full discharge from civil commitment.
Affirmed.