Green v. State

• Decision Date: 30 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3467, 2799, Sept. Term, 2018,3467, 2799, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 239 A.3d 711,247 Md.App. 591
• Parties: Carlton M. GREEN v. State of Maryland COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

247 Md.App. 591

239 A.3d 711

Carlton M. GREEN

v.State of Maryland COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES

No. 3467, 2799, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 30, 2020

Argued by Walter W. Green (Green Law PC, on the brief), College Park, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by Joseph Dudek (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: Fader, C.J., Graeff, Nazarian, JJ.^*

Graeff, J. Carlton Green, appellant, filed a complaint with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities ("the Commission"), against a judge. Several months later, the Commission notified Mr. Green that it was dismissing his complaint based on its conclusion that the evidence failed to show that the judge committed sanctionable conduct.

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 dismissed 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:

1. 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?

2. Is the Commission an administrative agency under Md. Rule 7-401?

3. Does the circuit court have subject matter jurisdiction when the procedure of the Commission is alleged to be unconstitutional?

4. 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:

1. Did the circuit court have jurisdiction over Mr. Green's complaint for declaratory judgment against the Commission?

2. Did Mr. Green have standing to bring a claim 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?

3. Did the Commission have the power to summarily dismiss Mr. Green's complaint?

4. 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 Commission. 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, 193 A.3d 187 (2018) ; see Md. Const. art. IV, § 4A. The Commission is comprised of eleven people, appointed by the Governor of Maryland with "the advice and consent of the Senate." Md. Const. art. IV, § 4A (a). These members consist of three Maryland judges, three Maryland lawyers who are not judges, and five members of the public who are not admitted to practice law in Maryland. Id . at 4A(c). The Commission's function is "merely an inquiry into the conduct of a judicial officer the aim of which is the maintenance of the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the proper administration." Reese , 461 Md. at 439, 193 A.3d 187 (quoting In re Diener , 268 Md. 659, 670, 304 A.2d 587 (1973) ).

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." Md. Const. art. IV, § 4B (a)(1)(i). The Commission has the authority to hold hearings and compel witnesses and the production of evidence, id . at § 4B (a)(1)(ii), and to issue a reprimand or "recommend to the Court of Appeals the removal, censure, or other appropriate disciplining of a judge or, in an appropriate case, retirement," id . at § 4B (a)(2). After receiving a recommendation from the Commission, the Court of Appeals may discipline the judge as it deems appropriate. Id. at § 4B (b)(1). All proceedings before the Commission shall be "confidential and privileged" unless the case is filed with the Court of Appeals. Id . at § 4B (a)(3).

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." Id . at § 4B (a)(5). Based on that authority, the Court of Appeals has adopted rules to govern the Commission's process, which currently are codified in Md. Rules 18-401 through 18-442. The Court of Appeals gave an overview of these procedures in Matter of White , 451 Md. 630, 636–37, 155 A.3d 463 (2017), as follows:

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 probable 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 either 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 appeal 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 by the Judicial Inquiry Board and the Commission. The letter advised that, after reviewing the materials that Mr. Green submitted, and the other materials gathered during the investigation, "the Commission concluded that the evidence failed to show that the judge committed sanctionable conduct."³ Accordingly, the letter stated that the Commission had dismissed the complaint, "as required by 18-406(a)(1)."⁴

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 declare 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...