Krych v. DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client Placement Committee members and participants et al

Filing 71

ORDER overruling plaintiff's 68 Letter {Appeal} to District Judge filed by Chris Krych. Affirming Magistrate Judge's 67 Order (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on August 17, 2015. (DML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-3091 (JRT/TNL)

CHRIS KRYCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DHS MSOP-ML, April 6, 2011, Client Placement
Committee Members and Participants (John Doe’s /
Jane Doe’s); KENT JOHANSEN, BARBARA
BISHOP, GREG SWENSEN, BILL GULLICKSON,
ROB ROSE, KEVIN BROWNE, BLAKE CAREY,
JESSICA GEIL, SCOTT BENOIT, YVETTE
ANDERSON, TERRY KNEISEL, LAURIE
SEVERSON, LUCINDA JESSON, KEVIN MOSER,
BARBARA BERG WINDELS, ELIZABETH
BARBO, TARA OSBORNE, LAINIE JANKE,
DANA OSBORNE, TERESA KNIES, JAMIE
JUNGERS, BETH VIRDEN, DIANA MAGAARD,
TOM DEGERSTROM, MARK HANSEN, MIKE
ANDERSON, JANE STINAR, JASON JOHNSON,
JOHN GORKIEWICZ, KEVIN NELSON, RICK
O’CONNOR, TIM CHRISTY, NICK LAMMI,
CINDY LUKENEN, JASON ANDERSON, MIKE
MESSENGER, NATALIE STEINERT, KELLI
MINER, CORNELIA LOUGH, RANDY
VALENTINE, BECKY OLSON, ANITA
MOONEN, and MANDY TORGERSON, each sued
in their individual capacity and official capacity as
employees of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services (MN-DHS),

ORDER AFFIRMING
ORDER OF
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DENYING REQUEST TO
LIEFT STAY

Defendants.
Chris Krych, MCF-Moose Lake, 1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN
55767, pro se.
Uzodima F. Aba-Onu, BASSFORD REMELE, PA, 33 South Sixth Street,
Suite 3800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendants.

This action is brought by Plaintiff Chris Krych against the employees of the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) and various Minnesota Department of
29

Human Services (“DHS”) officials for violating his constitutional rights during his civil
commitment to the MSOP. On January 25, 2012, Krych’s case was stayed pending the
resolution of a motion for class certification in Karsjens et al. v. Jesson et al., Civil Case
No. 11-3659 (DWF/JJK). On November 5, 2014, Krych sent a letter to United States
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung requesting that the stay on his case be lifted. On
November 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied Krych’s letter request, explaining that
because his case was stayed pending class-action litigation in Karsjens and the Karsjens
litigation remains ongoing, it is not appropriate to lift the stay in Krych’s case. On
February 24, 2015, Krych filed a letter appealing the Magistrate Judge’s order. In his
letter, Krych requests an explanation as to how his case is sufficiently related to Karsjens
to warrant a stay pending the outcome of that litigation. This matter is now before the
Court on Krych’s objection.

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that Krych’s case is closely related to Karsjens because the two
cases are brought by similarly situated plaintiffs and raise similar claims. Both Krych
and the plaintiffs in the Karsjens litigation are individuals civilly committed to the
MSOP. Krych’s complaint “alleges that conditions of confinement are unconstitutionally
restrictive with unsafe human double bunking practices; that defendants have imposed
punishment without due process and use [u]nconstitutionally obtained rule violations to
justify continued confinement/denial of discharge, and that MSOP’s double bunking

-2-

practices caused Plaintiff psychological and physical injuries.” (Compl. at 1-2, Oct. 19,
2011, Docket No. 1.)
Like Krych, the plaintiffs in the Karsjens MSOP class action also challenge, on
behalf of “[a]ll patients currently civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program pursuant to Minn. Stat., § 253B,” the constitutionality of the double-bunking
practices, arguing that patients “are double bunked in 9.5 x 15 ft. wet cells consisting of
two metal bed frames with springless mattresses that are only 30 inches apart, small
stainless steel desks, and a stainless steel toilet/sink combination unit fixed into the cell.”
(Karsjens et al. v. Jesson et al., Case No. 11-3659, Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) ¶¶ 43,
148, 152-54, 273, 294, Oct. 28, 2014, Docket No. 635.) The Karsjens class action also
objects to the MSOP employees’ alleged invasive practice of strip searching patients,
including touching the patients’ testicles and buttocks, patting down patients, and using a
metal-detecting wand on their bodies. (Id. ¶¶ 155-58, 161.) This conduct covers the
same types of allegations Krych makes with respect to his own treatment during his
commitment to the MSOP.
Although Krych’s complaint raises claims about treatment that is particular to
Krych as an individual and therefore not specifically discussed in the Karsjens litigation,
the Karsjens class action case adequately challenges the very types of allegedlyunconstitutional treatment Krych challenges. The Karsjens class action challenges that
treatment on behalf of all patients at the MSOP, which includes Krych. In light of these
similarities, the Court finds that Judge Michael J. Davis was correct to identify Krych as
a related case in his January 25, 2012 order staying cases sufficiently related to Karsjens,
-3-

pending the resolution of the Karsjens litigation. (Order at 4, Jan. 25, 2012, Docket
No. 31 (listing Krych’s case as a related case).) On June 17, 2015, Judge Donovan W.
Frank ruled on the constitutionality of the MSOP, finding that the program violated the
constitutional rights of patients. (Karsjens et al., Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order, June 17, 2015, Docket No. 966.) Judge Frank is still in the process of
determining remedies, however.

Therefore, because the Karsjens litigation remains

ongoing, the Court finds that it is appropriate for Krych’s case to remain stayed at this
time. The Court is hopeful that the Karsjens litigation will be resolved soon.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Krych’s letter appeal [Docket No. 68].

IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the order of the Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 67] is AFFIRMED.

DATED: August 17, 2015
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Chief Judge
United States District Court

-4-