135 A.3d 883
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Montgomery Blair Sibley sought a declaratory judgment in Montgomery County Circuit Court claiming he has a right to appear in person before the grand jury to present evidence that President Obama violated Md. Crim. Law § 8-303 by using a fraudulent government ID.
- Prior to filing suit, Sibley wrote the circuit court judge requesting an arrest warrant and wrote the Assistant State’s Attorney seeking permission to appear before the grand jury; the Assistant State’s Attorney (via the foreman) declined to investigate.
- Sibley sued John Doe (foreman of the Montgomery County Grand Jury) for declaratory relief, moved for pre-service discovery, and sought the judge’s recusal after having contacted the judge; motions for discovery and expedition were denied and recusal was denied.
- The State’s Attorney intervened and moved to dismiss; the circuit court granted dismissal (subject to Sibley filing an amended complaint) and denied Sibley’s motion to alter or amend; Sibley appealed.
- The Court of Special Appeals concluded the court properly dismissed Sibley’s complaint on the merits (Sibley had already asked the foreman via the State’s Attorney and had no right to personally approach the foreman) but vacated and remanded because the trial court failed to enter a written declaratory judgment defining the parties’ rights.
- The appellate court also affirmed denial of recusal and pre-service discovery, holding no abuse of discretion: the judge’s knowledge was not extrajudicial and discovery against a nonparty was not permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of declaratory relief was proper without written declaration | Sibley: dismissal was improper; court should have addressed his claim to appear before grand jury and alleged prosecutorial misconduct | State: dismissal correct; Brack limits citizen to asking foreman (not personal approach) and Sibley hadn’t failed exhaustion before a magistrate equivalent | Court: Dismissal on merits was proper (Sibley had asked through prosecutors and has no right to personally approach foreman) but remanded because trial court must enter written declaratory judgment consistent with opinion |
| Whether Sibley has a right to personally appear before grand jury or to present directly to foreman | Sibley: Brack’s prerequisites improperly limit his common-law right to petition grand jury in person; he exhausted remedies | Sibley had not meaningfully failed magistrate/commissioner remedy and Brack bars direct approach to individual jurors | Court: Under Brack, citizen may ask grand jury for permission after exhausting magistrate/State’s Attorney remedies; no right to personally approach the foreman |
| Whether the trial judge should have recused for prior contact | Sibley: prior contact with Judge Debelius requires recusal under CJC because judge has personal knowledge of disputed facts | State: knowledge derived in judicial context, not extrajudicial; no basis for recusal | Court: No abuse of discretion; recusal not required because knowledge was not from an extrajudicial source |
| Whether pre-service discovery should have been allowed to identify John Doe | Sibley: needed discovery to identify foreman so he could serve John Doe | State: interrogatories may be served only on parties; requested discovery sought nonparty information | Court: No abuse of discretion; discovery against nonparty (Assistant State’s Attorney) not permitted and court controls discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86 (Md. 1944) (establishes citizen’s right to offer evidence to grand jury but requires exhaustion before magistrate and State’s Attorney and bars approaching individual jurors)
- Harford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Woodfin Equities Corp., 344 Md. 399 (Md. 1997) (trial court must enter a written declaratory judgment defining parties’ rights even if plaintiff loses)
- State v. Smith, 305 Md. 489 (Md. 1986) (District Court commissioners perform functions of committing magistrates for purposes of exhaustion requirement)
- Scott v. State, 175 Md. App. 130 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007) (knowledge requiring recusal must be from an extrajudicial source)
- Patton v. Wells Fargo Fin. Md., Inc., 437 Md. 83 (Md. 2014) (standard for appellate review of dismissal; accept factual allegations and reasonable inferences)