168 A.3d 857
Md.2017Background
- Four criminal defendants (Appellants) were found incompetent to stand trial and dangerous; the circuit court committed each to MDH and ordered admission to Clifton T. Perkins Hospital "no later than" the day after the commitment orders.
- MDH operated a limited-bed admission policy that created a waiting list; Appellants were not admitted within the one-day deadlines and filed suit alleging statutory and Article 24 (Maryland Declaration of Rights) due process violations.
- MDH moved to dismiss; by the time of briefing the Appellants had been admitted (12–36 days after commitment), and the circuit court dismissed Count One (statutory claim) and Count Two (facial due process claim).
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide (1) whether the statute (CP § 3-106(b)) authorizes courts to set binding admission deadlines and (2) whether delays in admission can violate substantive due process under Article 24.
- The Court held that the statute neither sets nor authorizes court-imposed admission deadlines and that failing to meet a court-set deadline may violate the order (contempt) but is not itself a statutory violation; however, an as-applied substantive due process claim alleging an unreasonable delay may state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CP § 3-106(b) authorizes courts to set deadlines for hospital admission | Statute permits courts to order commitment and thus may include a deadline for admission | Statute does not specify any admission timetable or empower courts to set one; MDH designates facility | Court: statute does not authorize courts to set admission deadlines (court may still include deadline in order but authority is not statutory) |
| Whether MDH's failure to meet a court-imposed admission deadline violates CP § 3-106(b) | Missing the deadline is a statutory violation because it thwarts the commitment scheme | Failure to meet an order’s deadline may violate the order (contempt) but not the statute itself | Court: Failure to meet deadline can violate the court order (contempt) but is not per se a violation of CP § 3-106(b) |
| Mootness — are Appellants' claims moot because they were later admitted? | Exception: issue is capable of repetition yet evading review; declaratory relief still meaningful | Appellants already obtained relief; case moot | Court: decline to dismiss as moot under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception for declaratory relief; injunction claims as to these admissions are moot |
| Substantive due process — can delays in admission violate Article 24? | Delays in admission (here, days–weeks) unreasonably deprive liberty and right to restorative treatment | Some delay is inevitable; reasonableness depends on circumstances and MDH's resource constraints | Court: Facial challenge fails; as-applied due process claims may succeed — delays must be reasonable in relation to treatment/restoration and public safety; remand for fact-specific inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (competency to stand trial is fundamental to due process)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (indefinite commitment solely for incompetency violates due process; commitment must relate reasonably to restoration)
- Allmond v. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 448 Md. 592 (Md. 2016) (state interest in restoring competency balanced against defendants' rights)
- State v. Ray, 429 Md. 566 (Md. 2012) (interpretation of restorability and competency statutory framework)
- Mink v. Oregon Advocacy Center, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming trial court injunction requiring prompt admission; legislative deadlines weighed)
- Advocacy Center for the Elderly & Disabled v. La. Dep't of Health & Hospitals, 731 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. La. 2010) (extended admission delays likely violated due process; preliminary injunction set admission timeframe)