221459P.pdf   07/13/2023  Kevin Karsjens  v.  Jodi Harpstead
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-1459
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Erickson and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil Rights. For the court's prior opinions reversing the 
   district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff class of sex offenders 
   civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program pursuant to the 
   Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act on their claims that the MCTA 
   is unconstitutional on procedural due process grounds and reversing the 
   district court's subsequent application of the "shocks the conscience" 
   standard to grant judgment in favor of defendants on the offenders' claims 
   that defendants are violating their rights to be free from punishment, to 
   less restrictive alternative confinement, and to be free from inhumane 
   treatment, see Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017) and 
   Karsjens v. Lourey, 988 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2021), respectively. On remand 
   for a second time, the district court granted judgment in favor of 
   defendants, reasoning that there was no evidence the continuum of MSOP 
   facilities is punitive, that plaintiffs have not raised any 
   treatment-related claims, and that the conditions-of-confinement claims 
   fail because the challenged conditions are not punitive under Bell v. 
   Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Held: plaintiffs waived any reliance on 
   Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) by not raising the issue before 
   the district court or in the earlier appeals; plaintiffs' remaining 
   challenges to the conditions of their confinement fail under Bell; and the 
   inadequate-medical-care claims fail in the absence of any evidence 
   plaintiffs have been injured by defendants' allegedly unconstitutional 
   actions.