This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1077
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Rakan Muhhammad Alam
Filed December 26, 2023
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge
Beltrami County District Court
File No. 04-PR-23-944
Darla Nubson, Nubson Law Office, PLLC, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for appellant)
David Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Taylor Tisdell, Assistant County Attorney,
Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and
Schmidt, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
On appeal from a judgment of civil commitment as a chemically dependent person,
appellant Rakan Muhammad Alam 1 argues the district court erred because: (1) the record
does not support the conclusion that he is incapable of self-management due to habitual
and excessive use of alcohol, (2) the record does not show that his alcohol use poses a
1
The spelling of Alam’s middle name is inconsistent in the record, and the correct spelling
is “Muhammad” according to his appellant’s brief, but the case caption cannot be changed
on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01.
substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others, and (3) the district court failed
to make adequate findings of fact regarding less-restrictive alternatives. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Beltrami County Health and Human Services 2 filed a petition for
involuntary commitment of Alam on the basis that he poses a risk of harm to himself or
others due to mental illness and chemical dependency. The petition arose from an incident
in the early morning hours of April 5, 2023, in which Alam allegedly tried to force his way
into his neighbor’s apartment. Alam reportedly punched his neighbor’s boyfriend and
threatened to harm the man. 3 Police responded, and Alam reportedly fought with officers.
Officers arrested Alam and the state charged him with fifth-degree assault, disorderly
conduct, and obstructing legal process. The April 5 incident occurred within 24 hours after
prior misdemeanor charges against Alam were dismissed by operation of law in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes section 611.45 (2022), following a finding of incompetency.
In the petition for involuntary commitment, Beltrami County Health and Human
Services alleged facts asserting Alam’s excessive alcohol use. The petition was based on
the April 5 incident as well as a series of earlier events that we briefly summarize here.
In December 2022, Adult Services at Beltrami County Health and Human Services
performed an assessment of Alam and determined that he met the Diagnostic and Statistical
2
Beltrami County did not file a responsive brief on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
142.03 (providing if respondent fails to file a brief, the case will be decided on the merits).
3
Alam disputes this representation of the events and claims that his neighbor’s boyfriend
assaulted him after trying to “get into his life.”
2
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria for substance use disorder. The assessment
recommended that Alam abstain from alcohol, participate in treatment coordination, and
successfully complete a residential treatment program. The petition for involuntary
commitment alleged that Alam did not follow those recommendations.
In March 2023, following multiple misdemeanor charges for improper calls to
emergency services, the district court ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to Minn.
R. Crim. P. 20.01. During the evaluation, Alam admitted to drinking about seven beers per
day, but did not believe he had a substance use problem. The evaluating doctor opined that
Alam had a delusional disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and alcohol-use disorder;
concluding that Alam was mentally ill, but not cognitively impaired. The evaluating doctor
also suggested that Alam should be admitted to a facility where he could be treated for his
disorders. As a result of the evaluation, the district court found Alam incompetent and the
state dismissed the misdemeanor charges. See Minn. Stat. § 611.45, subd. 3(a) (providing
misdemeanor charges must be dismissed if the court finds the defendant incompetent).
Prior to filing the involuntary commitment petition, Beltrami County Health and
Human Services conducted a pre-petition screening of Alam. The pre-petition screening
report concluded that Alam met the definitions of a chemically dependent person and of a
person who poses a risk of harm due to a mental illness. Specifically, the report found that
Alam drinks alcohol daily and he “has no interest in stopping and does not see the need for
treatment.” The report further found Alam’s “drinking has led to physical altercations, the
last one resulting in his arrest for 5th degree assault.” The pre-petition screening also noted
that Alam relies on family for financial support and for assistance in paying bills.
3
The court-appointed examiner, Dr. James Alsdurf, subsequently filed a report of his
examination of Alam. Dr. Alsdurf’s report found that Alam had acknowledged constant
and chronic alcohol abuse but noted Alam “has failed to seek or maintain treatment for his
mental illness and currently lacks the capacity to care for himself at this point.”
At Alam’s request, the district court appointed Dr. Charles Chmielewski to conduct
an independent examination of Alam. Dr. Chmielewski found that Alam “seems to be
having a lot of difficulty managing his life,” “sustaining any employment, [and] managing
his finances.” Dr. Chmielewski opined that the evidence was not “clear and convincing”
regarding a mental illness commitment, but concluded that Alam’s alcoholism is “clear and
convincing.” Dr. Chmielewski recommended a chemical dependency commitment:
[Alam] is in denial with regard to his alcoholism, and has made
it clear that he isn’t going to address this problem voluntarily.
The alcoholism has no doubt made it very difficult for him to
manage his life, and has allegedly led to some threatening
remarks toward family members on the phone, and then
resulted in the assault charges and his return to jail later that
same night. I would recommend a six month [chemical
dependency] commitment, with inpatient [chemical
dependency] treatment followed by mandated follow up
services in the community.
At the civil-commitment hearing in May 2023, both examining doctors testified.
Dr. Alsdurf testified consistent with his report. Dr. Alsdurf also opined that an inpatient
program is necessary to adequately treat Alam. Dr. Chmielewski testified that in his
opinion Alam is not mentally ill, but also opined that Alam poses a substantial likelihood
of harm to himself due to his chemical dependency. Dr. Chmielewski further opinioned
that Alam could not adequately address his chemical dependency issues on an outpatient
4
basis and concluded that the least-restrictive option would be for Alam to be committed to
an inpatient facility.
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court rejected the state’s
request for civil commitment based upon mental illness. The district court found, however,
that “[b]ased upon the testimony offered by the examiners at the hearing, as well as the
related criminal files, documents, and records,” there is clear and convincing evidence to
support that Alam is a chemically dependent person as defined under Minnesota Statute
section 253B.02 (2022). The district court continued that Alam “is a danger to [himself],
or others as demonstrated by the underlying criminal charges and [Alam’s] failure to obtain
necessary food, clothing, shelter, safety, or medical care due to being chemically
dependent.” The district court also noted that because of Alam’s alcohol use, he “poses a
substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by his recent
attempt or threat to physically harm self or others that occurred on or around April 5, 2023,
and for which [Alam] was ultimately arrested and criminally charged.” Regarding
less-restrictive alternatives, the district court stated:
The criminal court ordered [Alam] to complete a chemical use
assessment and follow all recommendations. The chemical use
assessment recommended that [Alam] enter into inpatient
treatment. [Alam] failed to comply with those
recommendations and did not enter inpatient treatment.
[Alam] instead continued to use alcohol and incurred
additional criminal charges as a result of his chemical use.
[Alam’s] failure to seek any sort of treatment despite having
this requirement imposed upon him by the criminal court,
shows that he is unable or unwilling to comply with voluntary
treatment.
As a result, the district court granted the petition. Alam appeals.
5
DECISION
Involuntary commitment is justified where the district court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the proposed patient is a person who has a chemical dependency
and there is no suitable alternative to commitment. Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 1(a)
(2022); In re Galusha, 372 N.W.2d 843, 846-47 (Minn. App. 1985). The statute defines a
“chemically dependent person” as any person “determined as being incapable of
self-management or management of personal affairs by reason of the habitual and
excessive use of alcohol . . . and . . . whose recent conduct as a result of habitual and
excessive use of alcohol . . . poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or
others[.]” Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 2.
The district court’s findings related to a determination that a person is chemically
dependent will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In re May, 477 N.W.2d 913, 915
(Minn. App. 1991). The supreme court has stated that the clear error standard of review
“is a review of the record to confirm that evidence exists to support the decision.” In re
Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222 (Minn. 2021). “When the record
reasonably supports the findings at issue on appeal, it is immaterial that the record might
also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary.” Id. at 223
(quotation omitted). In applying the clear error standard of review, appellate courts
(1) view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings, (2) do not reweigh the
evidence, (3) do not find their own facts, and (4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence. Id.
at 221-22. Accordingly:
6
[A]n appellate court need not go into an extended discussion
of the evidence to prove or demonstrate the correctness of the
findings of the [district] court. Rather, because the factfinder
has the primary responsibility of determining the fact issues
and the advantage of observing the witnesses in view of all the
circumstances surrounding the entire proceeding, an appellate
court’s duty is fully performed after it has fairly considered all
the evidence and has determined that the evidence reasonably
supports the decision.
Id. at 222 (quotations and citation omitted). We review de novo the legal question of
whether the facts found by the district court satisfy the statutory criteria for commitment.
In re Civ. Commitment of Spicer, 853 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Minn. App. 2014).
I. The district court did not err in concluding Alam is incapable of
self-management due to chemical dependency.
Alam argues that the district court clearly erred in the findings of fact by finding
that he is incapable of self-management due to his alcohol use. Alam further argues the
district court erred in using those findings to support its conclusion of law that the statutory
criteria for commitment was met. We disagree.
“Self-management” is not statutorily defined. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.02. This
court has previously held that, as used in section 253B.02, subdivision 2, self-management
refers to “one’s handling of the ordinary occurrences of daily life.” In re Heurung,
446 N.W.2d 694, 696 (Minn. App. 1989). “One who ‘self-manages,’ performs the ordinary
activities of daily life, copes with the ordinary stresses of daily life, and independently
cares for oneself in the ordinary course of daily life.” Id.
A district court’s finding that a patient cannot adequately function constitutes
sufficient evidence that the patient is incapable of managing himself. Id. (quotations
7
omitted). We have affirmed a district court’s finding that a patient cannot adequately
function where the evidence indicates the patient cannot manage his drinking or control his
anger and aggressive behavior, remains extremely dependent upon family members to pay
his bills and care for him, and that his health is deteriorating. Galusha, 372 N.W.2d at 847.
Alam acknowledges that the record contains evidence that he relied on his family to
pay his bills but argues that finding is insufficient because there is “no evidence that he
was unable to handle the ordinary occurrences of daily life.” While self-management is
“broader than the ability to pay bills,” the ordinary occurrences of daily life still include
the ability to pay bills. See Heurung, 446 N.W.2d at 696. The evidence in the record
supports the district court’s finding that Alam appears wholly reliant on his family to
perform that for him.
The district court’s finding that Alam is incapable of self-management is also
supported by Dr. Chmielewski’s concerns that Alam “seems to be having a lot of difficulty
managing his life,” “has had much difficulty sustaining any employment, or managing his
finances,” and that the amount of alcohol Alam consumes would “[c]ertainly . . . have
deleterious effects on one’s capacity to manage their life[.]” Thus, the record evidence
demonstrates that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Alam was incapable
of self-management due to his alcohol use.
8
II. The district court did not clearly err in finding Alam’s chemical dependency
poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others.
Alam argues that the district court clearly erred in finding he is a “danger” to himself
or others. Alam contends the record does not support the court’s finding and, as such, the
court erred in granting the civil-commitment petition.
A substantial likelihood of physical harm may be demonstrated by a recent attempt
or threat to physically harm self or others, evidence of recent serious physical problems, or
a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. Minn. Stat. § 253B.02,
subd. 2. The statute requires only that a substantial likelihood of physical harm exists, not
that the individual has, in fact, physically harmed himself or others. See id.
In arguing for reversal, Alam focuses on the district court’s finding that it had “no
reason to disbelieve” Alam’s version of events related to whether a criminal physical
assault occurred. While the altercation on April 5, 2023, may not have been a criminal
assault according to Alam’s version of events, it still provided support for the district
court’s finding that the altercation represented a recent threat of physical harm to Alam or
others as a result of his “habitual and excessive use of alcohol.”
Alam’s physical altercation in April 2023 constituted a recent attempt or threat to
harm himself or others sufficient to support a finding that Alam’s chemical dependency
poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others. The district court did
not clearly err in its findings of fact or err in its conclusion of law.
9
III. The district court adequately considered less-restrictive alternatives.
Finally, Alam argues the district court did not adequately consider less-restrictive
alternatives. We disagree.
If the district court orders commitment, the court must make findings that “identify
less restrictive alternatives considered and rejected by the court and the reasons for
rejecting each alternative.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 2(b) (2022). We review a district
court’s findings regarding the least restrictive treatment program for clear error. In re
Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 2003).
We have previously affirmed a commitment order where both examiners
recommended inpatient treatment and the appellant had failed to cooperate with voluntary
treatment. See In re Redcloud, 359 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. App. 1984). In such
circumstances, we concluded that less-restrictive options than inpatient treatment were
foreclosed. Id. Further, where previous treatment efforts have been unsuccessful,
alternatives less restrictive than commitment would not ensure that the individual would
remain off alcohol. See Heurung, 446 N.W.2d at 696; May, 477 N.W.2d at 916.
Here, both experts opined that Alam required inpatient treatment and both agreed
this constituted the least-restrictive alternative available. The record also supports the
district court’s finding that Alam had not complied with previous treatment despite
recommendations to do so after a court ordered a rule 25 evaluation. The district court
properly found that commitment to the Commissioner of Human Services is the least-
restrictive alternative that meets Alam’s needs.
Affirmed.
10