Ireland v. Shearin

ADKINS, J. We are called upon to decide whether an official custodian of records violates Maryland’s Public Information Act (“PIA”) by directing an applicant to resubmit document requests to the actual custodians within individual departments of the official’s agency. Appellant Robert Lamont Ireland, an inmate at the North Branch Correctional Institution (“NBCI”), submitted a request under the PIA to the office of Warden ⁴⁰⁴ John Rowley. Upon receipt of this request, Rowley directed Ireland to request records from the individual departments rather than the warden himself. Ireland filed a complaint alleging that Rowley violated his duties as the custodian of records for the NBCI under the PIA and seeking damages.

The Circuit Court dismissed this complaint and Ireland timely appealed. On our own initiative, we issued a writ of certiorari to consider the following question: Did the trial court err in dismissing [Ireland’s] complaint seeking to enforce his right to inspect records under the Maryland Public Information Act? We hold that the warden’s decision to direct an applicant requesting public records to make a second request to a department within his agency constitutes an improper denial under the provisions of the PIA. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 10, 2008, inmate Ireland sent a letter to Warden Rowley 1 requesting the disclosure of certain public records maintained at NBCI.

Specifically, Ireland requested four categories of documents. First, he sought Correctional Medical Services Contract Records, including documents describing the name and number of healthcare providers at NBCI, the cost and availability of medical services, and any complaints from prisoners against NBCI healthcare providers. Second, he requested records of the Inmate Welfare Fund, 2 including documents describing the officials who manage the fund and any investments or expenditures made. Third, he ⁴⁰⁵ sought Institutional Operations Records such as documents relating to security restrictions, security violations, and complaints from inmates about their conditions of confinement.

Finally, Ireland requested Copying Card Records, including documents related to the cost of making copies, sales of cards to inmates, and inmate complaints about the availability of the cards. Eleven days after Ireland sent his letter to Rowley, the warden’s secretary, Brenda Marvin, issued a response letter, directing Ireland to make separate requests to each department: Your request has been reviewed; however, the information in [sic] which you have requested is not kept on file in the Warden’s Office. Each department is responsible for maintaining files that are related to that particular department. Please direct your request to each department in which the request is relevant.

Example, issues pertaining to money affairs should be directed to the Business Office, issues pertaining to ARP’s should be directed to the ARP Office, medical concerns and issues should be directed to the Medical Department, etc____In an effort to help minimize the time for you to receive a response from the Warden, please direct your requests directly to the department in which the issue is relevant. Approximately another month and a half passed following Marvin’s letter, and Ireland still had yet to receive any documents from the Warden’s Office. Rowley’s failure to produce the requested documents prompted Ireland to file a pro se complaint in the Circuit Court for Allegany County, alleging that Rowley improperly denied his request under the PIA. Ireland also requested damages, including punitive damages for each denial.

Appellee Bobby Shearin, Rowley’s successor at NBCI, moved to dismiss Ireland’s complaint. Shearin argued that Rowley had not withheld disclosure in violation of the PIA and could not have denied Ireland’s request because the requested documents were not maintained by the Warden’s Office, but rather ⁴⁰⁶ were housed in other NBCI departments. The Circuit Court granted Shearin’s motion without opinion, and Ireland filed a timely notice of appeal in the Court of Special Appeals. Before argument in that Court, we issued a sua sponte writ of certiorari to hear the case.

DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review In reviewing a trial court’s dismissal, the appellate court must presume the truth of all well-pleaded facts and any reasonable inferences deriving from them. See Fioretti v. Md. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 351 Md. 66, 72 , 716 A.2d 258, 261 (1998). Proper review requires a determination of whether the trial court was legally correct. See Nesbit v. Gov’t Employees Ins.

Co., 382 Md. 65, 72 , 854 A.2d 879, 883 (2004). As such, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. See Id.

II

Mootness Shearin argues that Ireland’s case is moot because the Division of Correction has since permitted Ireland to inspect all requested documents, except those exempt from disclosure by law. Shearin contends that, because Ireland no longer suffers from a lack of access, any discussion of an improper denial is fruitless. “Ordinarily, courts will not decide moot or abstract questions, or render advisory opinions.” Creveling v. Gov’t Emples. Ins. Co., 376 Md. 72 , 83 n. 3, 828 A.2d 229 , 235 n. 3 (2003).

A case is moot when “there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties at the time it is before the court so that the court cannot provide an effective remedy.” Hammen v. Balt. County Police Dep’t, 373 Md. 440, 449 , 818 A.2d 1125, 1131 (2003) (citations omitted). When our decision would have no effect on the case before us, “we generally dismiss [such actions as moot] without a decision on the merits.” Id. at 450 , 818 A.2d at 1131 . ⁴⁰⁷ Here, we do not see how this case can be moot when Ireland maintains the right to challenge the adequacy of this later production (although not part of this appeal) and claims damages under SG Sections 10-623(d)(l) 3 and 10-627(b) 4 on grounds that Rowley knowingly and willfully failed to disclose the public records which Ireland was entitled to inspect. 5 Accordingly, we now turn to the substantive issue presented by this case.

III

Ireland’s PIA Request Maryland’s PIA states that a “custodian shall permit a person ... to inspect any public record[ 6 ] at any reasonable ⁴⁰⁸ time” except as otherwise provided by law. Md.Code (1984, 2009 Repl. Vol.), § 10-613 of the State Government (“SG”) Article. An individual asserts this right to access by submitting a written application to the custodian of records, unless an exception applies.

See SG § 10-614(a)(l). The recipient of the application must verify (1) that he or she is in fact a custodian of the record, see SG § 10-614(a)(3), and (2) that the document in question exists, see SG § 10-614(a)(4). If these two requirements are met, the custodian of records must then either grant or deny the application within thirty days of receiving the initial application. See SG § 10-614(b).

A grant of the application requires the custodian of records to produce the public record within 30 days of receipt of the application. See SG § 10-614(b)(2). On the other hand, a denial requires the custodian of records to immediately notify the applicant and, within ten business days, provide a written statement to the applicant giving the legal reasons for the agency’s failure to disclose and advising the applicant of his or her right for review of the denial. See SG § 10-614(b)(3).

The PIA permits applicants to broadly seek judicial review whenever they are denied inspection of a public record by filing a complaint in the appropriate circuit court jurisdiction. See SG § 10-623(a). We have reiterated on numerous occasions that the PIA reflects the need for wide-ranging access to public records, and therefore, the statute should be construed in favor of disclosure for the benefit of the requesting party. See, e.g., Hammen v. Balt.

County Police Dep’t, 373 Md. 440, 457 , 818 A.2d 1125, 1135 (2003) (“[T]he provisions of the [PIA] reflect the legislative intent that citizens of the State of Maryland be accorded wide-ranging access to public information concerning the operation of their government.”) (emphasis in original); Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 81 , 721 A.2d 196, 199 (1998) (same); Fioretti, 351 Md. at 73 , 716 A.2d at 262 (same); AS. Abell Pub. Co. v. Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 32 , 464 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1983) (same). ⁴⁰⁹ The PIA defines a “custodian” as someone who is the “official custodian” or “any other authorized individual who has physical custody and control of a public record.” SG § 10—611(c). The “official custodian” is an “officer or employee of the State or of a political subdivision who, whether or not the officer or employee has physical custody and control of a public record, is responsible for keeping the public record.” SG § 10—611(d).

Here, Rowley served as warden of NBCI at the time of Ireland’s request. The term “warden” falls within the definition of “managing official” in the Correctional Services Article. See Md.Code (1999, 2008 RephVol.), § l-101(k) of the Correctional Services (“CS”) Article (defining “Managing official” as the “administrator, director, warden, superintendent, sheriff, or other individual responsible for the management of a correctional facility.”) (emphasis added). It follows, then, that as the individual responsible for managing NBCI, and therefore maintaining records at the institution, Rowley qualified as the official custodian of records under the PIA.

As the official custodian of records, Rowley incurred the same duties and responsibilities as a physical custodian of records under the PIA. The PIA requires an applicant to submit a written application to “the custodian])]” § 10-614(a)(1); it does not limit requests only to the physical custodian. Similarly, the definition of a custodian does not differentiate between “physical custodian” and “official custodian.” See SG § 10-611(c). Therefore, under the Act, Rowley’s status as the official custodian of records does not alter his burden to respond to information requests of the individual departments of NBCI.

Nonetheless, Shearin maintains that Rowley did not withhold information because he merely redirected Ireland to more appropriate custodians as required under Section 10-614(a)(3). See SG § 10-614(a)(3) (“If the individual to whom the application is submitted is not the custodian of the public record ... the individual shall give the applicant ... if known: [1] the name of the custodian; and [2] the location or possible ⁴¹⁰ location of the public record.”). 7 This argument ignores the plain language of the PIA, which permits referral only if “the individual to whom the application is submitted is not the custodian of the public record[.]” SG § 10-614(a)(3)