In re G.S.
No. 2024-359-Appeal. (MH-24-489)
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
October 24, 2025
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal: Sixth Division District Court; Judicial Officer from Lower Court: Associate Justice Mary McCaffrey
Thomas J. Corrigan, Jr.
RI Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals
For Respondent:
Grant Shippee, pro se
O R D E R
The respondent, G.S., appeals from an amended order issued by the District Court certifying him to outpatient treatment, finding him not competent to make informed decisions with respect to recommended medications, and consenting to the administration of certain medications. On appeal, G.S. contends that the order was made in plain error and that hе was unable to prepare for trial.
This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not bе summarily decided. After a careful review of the record and oral argument, we are of the оpinion that cause has not been shown and that the appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, the matter before the Court is moot.
In September 2024, G.S. wаs engaging in increasingly erratic behavior in the community. In response to G.S.‘s escalating behavior, Scituate police requested an evaluation of G.S. at Gateway Healthcare Inc. (Gateway) that resulted in G.S.‘s
A hearing was held in the District Court on September 27, 2024. G.S. was represented at the hearing by competent counsel from the Office of the Mental Health Advocate. At the hearing, Dr. Au Yeung testified that G.S. had a history of schizophrenia, multiple inpatient psychiatric admissions, and court-ordered treаtment. According to Dr. Au Yeung, while at Rhode Island Hospital, G.S. refused treatments and was argumentative, paranoid, and disruptive. After evaluating G.S., Dr. Au Yeung concluded that his “continued unsupervised presence in the community would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of psychiatric illness as manifested by a substantial risk of physical harm to others.” Doctor Au Yeung investigated alternatives to inpatiеnt treatment, but found that none were suitable for G.S.‘s treatment needs. Counsel for G.S. engaged in extensive сross-examination of Dr. Au Yeung.
At the conclusion of the hearing, an order was entered granting the Petition for Civil Court Certification. The order certified G.S. to inpatient treatment, found him not competent to make informed decisions with respect to recommended medications, and consented to the administration of certain medications to him. The
It is well settled that “a case is moot if the original complaint raised а justiciable controversy, but events occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of a continuing stаke in the controversy.” Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals v. L.Z., 208 A.3d 242, 242-43 (R.I. 2019) (mem.) (quoting Hallsmith-Sysco Food Services, LLC v. Marques, 970 A.2d 1211, 1213 (R.I. 2009)). As of March 27, 2025, G.S. is no longer committed or subject to the conditions of the order. Therefore, there is no relief this Court can provide G.S. at this time. See Robar v. Robar, 154 A.3d 947, 948 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (stating that the ordеr at issue had expired, rendering the case moot). Because this appeal is now moot, we need not address the issues raised by either party in their submissions to this Court.
We note that G.S. appeared before this Court and presented his case in a passionate and respectful manner. While we are sympathetic to his plight, the order appealed from has expired by its own terms. Therefore, we are unable to grant him any relief at this time, as there is no justiciable issue before us. The cаse is moot.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Entered as аn Order of this Court this 24th day of October, 2025.
By Order,
/s/ Meredith A. Benoit, Clerk
Clerk