Buy This Entire Record For
Ireland v. State
United States District Court, D. North Dakota
September 18, 2017
Rodney J. Ireland, Lester McGillis, Gerald DeCoteau, William Carter, Ryan Corman, Matthew Graham, Terry Greak, Glenn Halton, Robert Hoff, Monte Hojian, Jeremy Johnson, Michael Kruk, Garrett Loy, Kevette Moore, Cruz Muscha, Darin Napier, Paul Oie, Timothy Olpin, Larry Rubey, Christopher Simon, Kelly Tanner, John Westlie, Robert Lilley, Darl Hehn, Oliver Wardlow, Joshua Keeping, Matthew Dyer, Travis Wedmore, Kyle Aune, Marcus Bartole, Jason Gores, Estel Naser, Andrew Olafson, Stanton Quilt, Raymond Voisine, Eugene Wegley, David Anderson, Eugene Fluge, Robert Beauchamp, and Sandy Mangelsen, Plaintiffs,
State of North Dakota, North Dakota, Department of Human Services, North Dakota State Hospital, Dr. Rosalie Etherington, Superintendent of the North Dakota State Hospital, and Christopher Jones, Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO SET ASIDE
DISMISSAL OF DOCR CLAIMS AND TO ALLOW JEFFREY WRIGHT BE ADDED
AS A PLAINTIFF
R. Erickson, District Judge United States District Court.
court has received a Report and Recommendation from the
Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, recommending that (1) the
plaintiffs' motion to set aside the order dismissing the
DOCR claims be granted; (2) that the motion to add Jeffrey
Wright as a plaintiff be reconsidered and granted; and (3)
that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion
for reconsideration be dismissed as moot. The defendants
have objected to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiffs
have responded to the defendants'
defendants contend that adding Wright as a plaintiff would be
futile because of the inherent flaw in the proposed DOCR
Class's definition which includes sex offenders committed
to the custody of the DOCR who will be referred to a
state's attorney for civil commitment. The
defendants' additional argument is that Wright does not
have standing to represent those who have been referred to a
state's attorney for civil commitment. The defendants
maintain that the plaintiffs' renewed motion and
pleadings do not change the court's underlying findings
regarding standing for the proposed DOCR Class.
review of the record, the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation, and the parties' arguments, in light of
the newly discovered evidence regarding Wright's referral
to the DOCR for civil commitment proceedings, the court finds
that the plaintiffs have provided sufficient reason under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to set aside the court's previous
order of dismissal of the DOCR defendants. Moreover, good
cause exists under Rule 16(b)(4) to reconsider the previous
order denying the plaintiffs'
motion to add Wright as an additional plaintiff.
The defendants will have an opportunity to present their
arguments on standing and the appropriateness of class
certification and the plaintiffs will have a chance to
respond to those arguments.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs'
motion to set aside the court's
order dismissing the DOCR claims is
GRANTED. The court's order dated May 23,
2017, is VACATED. The plaintiffs'
motion to add Wright as a plaintiff is
reconsidered and GRANTED. The court's
order dated November 21, 2016, denying the
motion is VACATED. The plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration is DISMISSED as moot. The
defendants may file a new motion challenging Wright's
standing or other issues arising from the addition of Wright
as a plaintiff.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Doc. #578.
 Doc. #588.
 Doc. #589.
 Doc. #450.
 Doc. #417.
 Doc. #549.