In re Pima Cnty. Mental Health No. MH200002091621

• Decision Date: 03 February 2023
• Docket Number: 2 CA-MH 2022-0001
• Parties: In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH200002091621
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

1

In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH200002091621

No. 2 CA-MH 2022-0001

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

February 3, 2023

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. MH200002091621 The Honorable Alyce L. Pennington, Judge Pro Tempore

P.B Tucson In Propria Persona

Nuccio &Shirley PC, Tucson By Salvatore Nuccio Counsel for Appellee CODAC Health, Recovery & Wellness Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

EPPICH, JUDGE

¶1 Appellant P.B. challenges the trial court's denial of her request for an "evidentiary judicial review hearing" and request to delay a scheduled injection of medication. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's findings and judgment. Cf. In re Maricopa Cnty. Mental Health No. MH 2008-001188, 221 Ariz. 177, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (reviewing order for involuntary treatment). In October 2021, the trial court found that P.B. was, "as a result of a mental disorder persistently or acutely disabled, and in need of a period of mental health treatment," but was "unable or unwilling to comply with treatment on a voluntary basis." The court therefore ordered that she "receive court-ordered treatment for one year."

¶3 In December 2021, P.B. sought judicial review of her court-ordered treatment, requesting release. See A.R.S. § 36-546. The trial court denied the request on January 6, 2022. On January 12, P.B., through counsel, filed a "Request for Judicial Review Hearing." In the request, she asked for "reconsideration of th[e] denial by evidentiary hearing" and sought to delay an injection of medication scheduled to be administered on January 13. Although the court denied P.B.'s request for reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing on the broader question of release from court-ordered treatment, it heard testimony from P.B. and the psychiatric nurse practitioner who had ordered the injection. It thereafter denied P.B.'s request to delay the injection. Due to that denial, P.B. received the injection as scheduled and was subsequently released from court-ordered treatment in May 2022.

¶4 Based on P.B. having already received the injection at issue and having been released, appellee argues this appeal should be dismissed as moot. We agree. A case is moot when the involuntary commitment period has expired, see In re Coconino Cnty. Mental Health No. MH 1425, 181 Ariz. 290 292 (1995), or "when an event occurs which would cause the outcome of the appeal to have no practical effect on the parties," Sedona Priv. Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126, ¶ 5 (App. 1998); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. Mental Health No. MH 2008-000028, 221 Ariz. 277, ¶ 13 (App. 2009) ("A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights." (quoting Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert, 144 Ariz. 227, 229 (App. 1985))). And, "we typically decline to consider moot or abstract questions as a matter of judicial restraint" because "'[i]t is not an appellate court's function to declare principles of law which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.'" Kondaur Cap. Corp. v. Pinal County, 235 Ariz. 189, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (quoting Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 143 Ariz. 547, 548 (App. 1985)); see also Contempo-Tempe, ...