OAH 2-1100-19228-2

 

  

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

 

In the Matter of the Risk Level

Determination of Scott Novak

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

 

          On September 19, 2007, the undersigned Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) received a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on behalf of Scott Novak (Petitioner), a Level III sex offender currently residing at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.  The petition requested the Office of Administrative Hearings to direct the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) to conduct a risk assessment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 244.052.  Counsel for the DOC responded on October 2, 2007.  The ALJ did not hold a hearing on the motion.

          Jessica A. Palmer-Denig, Assistant Attorney General, Suite 1800, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2134, appeared on behalf of the Department of Corrections.  F. Richard Gallo, Jr., Assistant State Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Scott Novak.

          For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum that follows, the Chief Administrative Law Judge DENIES the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

Dated:  October 8, 2007

 

s/Raymond R. Krause

RAYMOND R. KRAUSE

Chief Administrative Law Judge

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM

I.        Background and Procedural History

          In May of 2000, Petitioner entered prison after being convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First, Second and Third Degrees.  Petitioner was initially released from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Moose Lake on intensive supervised release and was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person and sexual psychopathic personality.  Prior to his release from prison in November 2005, the End of Confinement Review Committee (ECRC) at Moose Lake determined that Petitioner was a Risk Level III for purposes of the Community Notification Act.[1]  At the time of his civil commitment, Petitioner resided at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).  Petitioner was returned to prison after violating the terms of his release in January, 2007.  Anticipating his release from DOC confinement and a return to the MSOP on August 10, 2007, Petitioner requested a new risk level assessment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 244.052.  DOC denied his request in a letter dated August 17, 2007.  Petitioner was released from the custody of DOC on September 13, 2007 and transferred back to MSOP.  This petition followed.

II.       Jurisdiction to Consider the Petition for Writ of Mandamus

 

          A threshold issue that must be addressed is whether the ALJ has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.  The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is an executive branch court system.  It has no constitutional status but is a creation of the legislature, and its power to act is limited to authority granted to it by the legislature, consistent with principles of separation of powers.  In other words, ALJs have jurisdiction to act only within the boundaries of an administrative proceeding created by the legislature, such as a contested case proceeding under Chapter 14 of the Minnesota statutes.

 

          The legislature has explicitly spelled out that the “district court has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases of mandamus” unless the writ is to be directed to the district court, in which case the court of appeals assumes jurisdiction, or, if the writ is directed to the court of appeals, then the jurisdiction moves to the Minnesota Supreme Court.[2]  The Office of Administrative Hearings cannot assume jurisdiction in a matter where the district courts have original jurisdiction.[3]  Therefore, the ALJ lacks the authority to consider the Petitioner’s petition.

 

          Petitioner states that, because there is no risk assessment from which he can appeal or other case pending, the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is his only option for reviewing the DOC’s decision to refuse his request for a risk assessment.  He further argues that, because OAH is statutorily assigned the responsibility of hearing appeals reviewing risk assessment determinations, it is the proper forum for his petition.[4]  While it is true that OAH is the forum which the legislature has designated for appeals of ECRC risk level determinations, and that OAH has a significant level of familiarity with issues arising from those appeals, here there is no appeal of an ECRC decision.  Familiarity with the issues in general cannot vest OAH with the authority to hear a case which it both lacks explicit statutory authority to hear and, more importantly, where original jurisdiction lies with the district court.  It may be that a petition for a Writ of Mandamus is the proper vehicle for petitioner to seek redress, but he must address that petition to the district court.

 

                                                            R.R.K.

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Minn. Stat. § 244.052 (2006).

[2] Minn. Stat. § 586.11 (2006).

[3] See, generally, Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W. 2d 720 (Minn. 1999).

[4] See Minn. Stat. § 244.052, subd. 6 (2006).