Green v. Md. Comm’n on Judicial Disabilities
No. 3467 & No. 2799
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
September 30, 2020
Opinion by Graeff, J.
September Term, 2018
Green v. Md. Comm’n on Judicial Disabilities, No. 3467 & No. 2799, September Term 2018, Opinion by Graeff, J.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT – STANDING – DUE PROCESS INTEREST
Thе purpose of the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities is “to maintain public confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of judges and the judicial system.”
REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Nos. 3467 & 2799
September Term, 2018
______________________________________
CARLTON M. GREEN
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES
______________________________________
Fader, C.J.,
Graeff,
Nazarian,
JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Graeff, J.
______________________________________
Filed: September 30, 2020
*Reed, J., did not participate in the decision to report this opinion pursuant to
Mr. Green then filed two complaints in the circuit court. The first complaint sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision. The second complaint sought a declaratory judgment, requesting the court to: (a) declare that his constitutional due process rights were denied by the Commission’s procedures; and (b) order that the matter be remanded to the Commission with directions to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of the complaint, including interviewing Mr. Green and allowing him to present evidence. The circuit court dismissеd both complaints.
On appeal, Mr. Green presents multiple issues for this Court’s review.1 In case No. 2799, the appeal relating to the complaint seeking judicial review, Mr. Green presents the following questions, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
- Is a complainant who files a complaint with the Commission entitled to seek administrative mandamus pursuant to
Maryland Rule 7-401 when the Commission dismisses the complaint? -
Is the Commission an administrative agency under Md. Rule 7-401 ? - Does the circuit court have subject matter jurisdiction when the procedure of the Commission is alleged tо be unconstitutional?
- Does a complainant to the Commission have any due process rights, and if so, were such rights denied by the circuit court in this case?
In case No. 3467, the appeal relating to the complaint seeking a declaratory judgment, Mr. Green presents the following questions, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
- Did the circuit court have jurisdiction over Mr. Green’s complaint for declaratory judgment against the Commission?
- Did Mr. Green have standing to bring a clаim for declaratory judgment against the Commission and did the court err in failing to allow an amendment of the complaint to allege facts demonstrating standing?
- Did the Commission have the power to summarily dismiss Mr. Green’s complaint?
- Does sovereign immunity apply to the Commission in the declaratory judgment action?
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BACKGROUND
I.
Commission on Judicial Disabilities
Before discussing the facts of this case, we discuss briefly the role and procedures of the Cоmmission. The Commission was “established as an independent body pursuant to Article IV of the Maryland Constitution.” Matter of Reese for Howard Cty., Tenth Judicial Circuit, 461 Md. 421, 436 (2018); see
Pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, the Commission has the power to: “Investigate complaints against any judge of the Court of Appeals, any intermediate courts of appeal, the circuit courts, the District Court of Maryland, or the orphans’ court.”
The Constitution provides that the Court of Appeals “shall prescribe by rule the means to implement and enforce the powers of the Commission and the practice and procedure before the Commission.”
Upon receiving a complaint alleging . . . misconduct by a judge, the Commission’s Investigative Counsel may conduct a preliminary investigation.
Maryland Rule 18–404 . The Judicial Inquiry Board, also created by the rules, monitors the investigation, receives a report from the Investigative Counsel, and makes a recommendation to the Commission about what, if any, further action to take on a complaint.Maryland Rules 18–403 ,18–404 . If the matter is not resolved at an earlier stage of the investigation or during the Judicial Inquiry Board process, and if the Commission finds рrobable cause to believe that the judge has committed sanctionable conduct, the Commission may direct the Investigative Counsel to file charges against the judge with the Commission.Maryland Rule 18–407(a) . Those charges, and the judge’s response to them, become the subject of an evidentiary hearing before the Commission. Id.The rules provide a judge accused of misconduct with various procedural rights in connection with the Commission’s hearing on the charges.
Maryland Rule 18–407(b) –(i). Among other things, the rules provide for notice to the judge of the charges and allow the judge to submit a written response.Maryland Rule 18–407(b) –(c). The judge has a right to be represented by counsel, to have subpoenas issued for testimony by witnesses and the production of evidence, to examine the Commission record, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses.Maryland Rule 18–407(f) . The pre-hearing exchange of information between the judge and Investigative Counsel is governed by the discovery rules applicable to civil actions in the circuit courts; the Chair of the Commission is authorized to carry out the function of a circuit court judge in limiting discovery, issuing protective orders, and otherwise resolving discovery disputes.Maryland Rule 18–407(g)(3) . The hearing before the Commission on the charges is to be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence and is to be stenographically recorded.Maryland Rule 18–407(i) .The Commission is to make findings of fact under a clear and convincing standard of proof and еither dismiss the charges, reprimand the judge, or refer the matter to the Court of Appeals for other discipline.
Maryland Rule 18–407(j) . If the matter is referred to this Court, the Commission is to create a record of its proceedings, including a transcript.Maryland Rule 18–407(k) .2
The rules do not provide, as they do for an accused judge, procedural rights for a complainant.
II.
Factual and Procedural Background
On November 2, 2017, Mr. Green filed a complaint with the Commission. Although the Commission’s confidential records are not included in the record on аppeal in this Court, Mr. Green asserts that his filing with the Commission included a statement of facts, under oath, alleging sanctionable conduct or disability by a judge.
On May 2, 2018, the Commission sent Mr. Green a letter, notifying him that his complaint had been reviewed and considered
On May 29, 2018, Mr. Green filed two complaints in the circuit court. One sought judicial review of the Commission’s dismissal of his complaint, alleging that Mr. Green “was a party to the agency decision.” The other sought a declaratory judgment
[d]eclaring and adjudicating the due process rights of the Complainant in Judicial disciplinary Case Number 2017-220; that the Court declаre the constitutional due process rights of the Complainant were denied Complainant in such proceeding and in order that the matter be remanded to the Defendant State of Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities with direction to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of the Complaint; to interview the Complainant and to afford Complainant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence to the Defendant Commission, following such hearing to be informed of the finding of facts and conclusion of law of such Defendant Commission; to further declare the rights of Complainant to appeal any decision of Defendant Commission; and for such other and further relief as is appropriate.
The Commission filed responses to both complaints. In its Corrected/Amended Motion to Dismiss Action for Judicial Review, the Commission set forth three reasons why the complaint should be dismissed. First, the Commission argued that the сircuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the actions of the Commission. It asserted that “the Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to oversee the activities of the Commission and the judicial disciplinary process,” and therefore, “the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to hear Mr. Green’s action for judicial review.”
Second, the Commission argued that judicial review of its investigation of complaints of judicial misconduct was not authorized by any statute or rule. It asserted that the Commission is not akin to an administrative agency subject to judicial review.
Third, the Commission argued that Mr. Green lacked standing to bring his complaints. It asserted that Mr. Green was “not an aggrieved party to the Commission’s action, investigation and dismissal” of the complaint.
The court ultimately granted the motion to dismiss. It stated that the reasons given by the Commission warranted dismissal.
The Commission also filed a motion to dismiss with respect to Mr. Green’s complaint for declaratory relief. It argued that the complaint should be dismissed because: (1) the claim was barred by sovereign immunity; (2) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) Mr. Green lacked standing becаuse there was no justiciable controversy between him and the Commission. Alternatively, the Commission argued that, if the court declined to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, it should “issue a declaration in favor of the Commission declaring that complainants have no constitutionally protected interest in the investigation and resolution of judicial disability complaints and, therefore, no entitlement to procedural due process.”
Mr. Green opposed thе Commission’s motion. He asserted that the Court of Appeals did not have exclusive jurisdiction to overrule the decision of the Commission, and the circuit court had jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action. He further argued that, because he was asking only for a declaration of rights, and not a monetary award, the Commission was not entitled to sovereign immunity. Finally, Mr. Green argued that he had standing because he was “affected by the lack of procedural duе process for him as a complainant,” and he was “entitled to have his rights declared under the Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act where the current Maryland Rules fail to adhere to procedural due process and are thus unconstitutional.”
On November 8, 2018, the circuit court held a hearing on the Commission’s motion.5 On January 22, 2019, the circuit court issued an order granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that “[a] claim may be dismissed when the alleged facts and reasonable inferences, even if proven, would still fail to afford relief to the plaintiff.” The court stated:
[Mr. Green] requests a declaratory judgement because he believes his constitutional rights were violated by not being granted the opportunity to take part in any hearing regarding his complaint filed with the Commission, and because he was given no opportunity to appeal the decision. The Declaratory Judgement Act Provides a mechanism to “settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal actions.”
Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-402 (2018) . Any person “whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute … may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the … statute, … and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it.”Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-403 .While [Mr. Green] may have no further legal recourse to find a way to address his grievances with the Commission’s actions, appealing to the Circuit Cоurt is not a remedy available to him. He has not proven the required loss of
life, liberty, or property interest to challenge the Commission’s decision based on a violation of his Due Process rights. To achieve the goal he is seeking, [Mr. Green] needs to proffer to the Maryland Legislature proposed changes to the Maryland Rules and Maryland Constitution. The Circuit Court need not consider whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction over judicial discipline or if the State has waived its sovereign immunity because [Mr. Green] lacks standing to bring this suit.
Mr. Green appealed the circuit court’s decisions in both cases. As indicated, the cases were consolidated for oral argument.6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the circuit court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Lamson v. Montgomery County, 460 Md. 349, 360 (2018). We also review determinations of standing de novo. Ibru v. Ibru, 239 Md. App. 17, 32–33 (2018), cert. denied, 462 Md. 570 (2019).
DISCUSSION
We begin our analysis by addressing whether Mr. Green has standing to bring his complaints for judicial review and declaratory judgment. Standing “is a threshold issue.” State v. Phillips, 210 Md. App. 239, 257 (2013) (quoting Norman v. Borison, 192 Md. App. 405, 420 (2010)). It “refers to whether the plaintiff has shown that he or she is entitled to invoke the judicial process.” Pizza di Joey, LLC v. Mayor of Baltimore, No. 41 Sept. Term, 2019, 2020 WL 4745777, at *13 (Md. Aug. 17, 2020) (quoting State Ctr., LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P’ship, 438 Md. 451, 502 (2014)). As the Court of Appeals recently explained:
The requirement of standing “is designed to ensure that a party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute that is capable of judicial resolution.” Kendall v. Howard Cty., 431 Md. 590, 603, 66 A.3d 684 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). “Under Maryland common law, standing to bring a judicial action generally depends on whether one is aggrieved, which means whether a plaintiff has an interest such that he or she is personally and
specifically affected in a way different from the public generally.” Id. (cleaned up).
Id. Accord Phillips, 210 Md. App. at 257 (“[T]o have standing, a party must demonstrate an ‘injury-in-fact,’ or ‘an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated.’”) (quoting Norman v. Borison, 192 Md. App. at 420).7
Mr. Green contends that he “has standing and a duty as a member of the Bar” to challenge procedures of the Commission that are in violation of the Constitution. With respect to the requirement that he demonstrate that he was injured or aggrieved by the Commission’s decision to
The Commission is not tasked with remedying a wrong to a complainant. Rather, as set fоrth in
system.” The Court of Appeals has explained that “[j]udicial discipline is ‘not for purposes of vengeance or retribution, but to instruct the public and all judges . . . of the importance of the function performed by judges in a free society.’” In re Lamdin, 404 Md. 631, 653 (2008) (quoting In re White, 651 N.W.2d 551, 566 (Neb. 2002)). Accord Reese, 461 Md. at 439 (aim of judicial disciplinary proceedings is “the maintenance of the honor and dignity of the judiciary”) (quoting In re Diener, 268 Md. at 670).
Other courts that have considered the issue of standing with respect to a complainant challenging the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding have noted the public purpose of disciplinary proceedings. For example, in Petition of Lath, 154 A.3d 1240 (N.H. 2017), the petitioners challenged the decision of the Attorney Discipline Office to dismiss the grievance they filed against an attorney. The court noted that “the purposes of attorney discipline include the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the bar.”
Similarly, in Boyce v. North Carolina State Bar, 814 S.E.2d 127, 133–35 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), the court held that a lawyer did not have standing to seek a declaratory judgment against the State Bar for refusing to discipline a candidate for Attorney General for a political advertisement. The court noted that the Stаte Bar disciplinary process was intended “to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.”
the complainant has no control over when, how, or whether the State Bar pursues his grievance. After reporting the alleged attorney misconduct to the Bar, the complainant’s interest in the case going forward is the same as all other members of the public—to see a state agency protect the public from attorney misconduct by pursuing discipline for unethical behavior[.]
In In re Faignant, 212 A.3d 623 (Vt. 2010), petitioner sought judicial review of Bar Counsel’s dismissal of the complaint he made against his attorney. The court dismissed the complaint, concluding that petitioner failed to allege an injury that conveys standing.
Here, the disciplinary system for judges in Maryland similarly serves to protect the public and maintain public confidence in thе judiciary. It is not designed to remedy alleged wrongs to the complainant. Accordingly, consistent with the analysis set forth in other jurisdictions, Mr. Green has not shown that he was injured or aggrieved by the Commission’s decision dismissing his complaint.
Mr. Green argues, however, that he was aggrieved, as the complainant to the Commission, by “the lack of procedural due process afforded” to him. This contention has no merit.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law.”
The only person who is subject to such deprivation by proceedings with the Commission is a judge, who is potentially subject to discipline or the loss of a job. The Commission, therefore, is required to provide judgеs with procedural due process. White, 451 Md. 648. An accused judge is entitled, before being subject to discipline, to “notice, an opportunity to respond, [and] a fair hearing.”
A person who files a complaint against a judge, however, does not have a life, liberty, or property interest at stake when the Commission decides whether to pursue judicial discipline. Thus, a person filing a complaint with the Commission has no due process rights. Mr. Green was not entitled to due prоcess, and his argument that he failed to receive it, therefore, is not a sufficient ground to find that he was aggrieved or suffered an injury.
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
Notes
Effective July 1, 2019, this rule becameThe Commission shall dismiss a complaint if, after an investigation, it concludes that the evidence fails to show that the judge has a disability or has committed sanctionable conduct. The Commission shall notify the judge and each complainant of the dismissal.