239 A.3d 711
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2020Background
- Carlton Green filed a complaint (Nov. 2017) with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities alleging sanctionable conduct by a judge. The Commission investigated and dismissed the complaint (May 2018), concluding the evidence did not show sanctionable conduct.
- Green then filed two actions in the circuit court: (1) judicial review/administrative mandamus of the Commission’s dismissal; and (2) a declaratory-judgment action alleging denial of his constitutional due-process rights and requesting remand for further investigation and an opportunity to be heard.
- The Commission moved to dismiss both suits, arguing lack of circuit-court jurisdiction, that it is not an administrative agency subject to Rule 7-401 review, sovereign immunity, and that Green lacked standing because disciplinary proceedings vindicate public—not private—interests.
- The circuit court dismissed both complaints for lack of standing (and noted no protectable life, liberty, or property interest for a complainant); Green appealed and the appeals were consolidated.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed: a complainant to the judicial-discipline system has no cognizable due-process interest and therefore lacks standing to seek judicial review or declaratory relief from the Commission’s disposition of a complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek judicial review/administrative mandamus after dismissal | Green: as complainant he has standing and may seek administrative mandamus under Md. Rule 7-401 | Commission: complainant has no private right; disciplinary process protects public, not complainant; no standing | Held: No standing; disciplinary system protects public interest, complainant has no legally cognizable stake |
| Is the Commission an "administrative agency" subject to Rule 7-401 review | Green: Commission actions are reviewable like other agencies | Commission: Not an administrative agency subject to Rule 7-401; Court of Appeals oversees process | Held: Court did not need to reach this because lack of standing disposes of claim; Commission’s public-protection role controls standing analysis |
| Circuit court subject-matter jurisdiction over Commission procedures | Green: circuit court may review constitutionality of Commission procedures | Commission: Court of Appeals has exclusive supervisory role over judicial discipline; circuit court lacks jurisdiction | Held: Circuit court’s jurisdiction question unnecessary to resolve after finding no standing; dismissal affirmed |
| Complainant’s due-process rights in disciplinary process | Green: he was denied due process (no notice/hearing, no ability to present evidence or appeal) | Commission: Due process applies to judges (possible deprivation of job), not to complainants who have no life/liberty/property interest | Held: No due-process entitlement for complainant; only accused judges possess protected interest |
| Declaratory-judgment action & sovereign immunity | Green: seeks only declaratory relief; sovereign immunity should not bar declaration of rights | Commission: sovereign immunity, lack of jurisdiction, and lack of standing bar the suit | Held: Dismissed for lack of standing; court did not need to decide sovereign immunity question |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Reese for Howard Cty., 461 Md. 421 (Md. 2018) (describing Commission’s constitutional creation and public‑protection function)
- Matter of White, 451 Md. 630 (Md. 2017) (outlining Commission procedures and due-process protections afforded to accused judges)
- In re Lamdin, 404 Md. 631 (Md. 2008) (judicial-discipline purpose is public instruction and maintenance of judicial integrity)
- In re Diener, 268 Md. 659 (Md. 1973) (Commission’s investigatory aim is maintenance of judiciary’s honor and proper administration)
- Sharp v. Howard County, 327 Md. 17 (Md. 1992) (recusal complaints/remedies are via appeal, not disciplinary process)
- Petition of Lath, 154 A.3d 1240 (N.H. 2017) (disciplinary complainant lacks standing; process protects public not individual)
- Boyce v. North Carolina State Bar, 814 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (complainant has no control over disciplinary pursuit and lacks standing)
- In re Faignant, 212 A.3d 623 (Vt. 2010) (dismissing review by complainant for lack of injury and standing)
- Cotton v. Steele, 587 N.W.2d 693 (Neb. 1999) (failure to discipline injures the public generally, not a particular individual)
- Operation Clean Gov’t v. R.I. Comm’n on Jud. Tenure & Discipline, 741 A.2d 257 (R.I. 1999) (citizen group lacked standing to compel particular investigatory steps)
- Kendall v. Howard Cty., 431 Md. 590 (Md. 2013) (standing requires plaintiff be personally and specifically affected)
- Lamson v. Montgomery County, 460 Md. 349 (Md. 2018) (de novo review standard for dismissals)