Mohapatro v. Richardson

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 1/22/2018. (c/m 1/23/2018 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SANJIB KUMAB MOHAPATRO
Petitioner,

*
*

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-17-2600
*

B. RICHARDSON, MDTA #1408, et al.
Respondents.

*
******

MEMORANDUM
I. Introduction
On September 6, 2017, the court received this petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sanjib
Mohapatro challenges his involuntary commitment to Springfield Hospital Center (SHC). ECF No.
1. On October 6, 2017, Mohapatro was ordered to pay the $5.00 filing fee or, in the alternative, to
move to proceed in forma pauperis. Respondents were granted an additional sixty days to answer the
petition. ECF No. 2.
On December 4, 2017, Respondents filed a show cause response. ECF No. 3. They allege
that because Mohapatro is no longer a patient at SHC, the petition is moot. They further argue that
Mohapatro was lawfully detained at SHC, failed to sue the proper custodian, and failed to exhaust
his available state remedies. Id. Mohapatro has not filed a reply.
II. Background
According to the documents provided to the court, on February 16, 2017, Mohapatro was
committed to the Maryland Department of Health (MDH)1 by the District Court for Anne Arundel

1

On July 1, 2017, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene changed its
name to the Maryland Department of Health. See https://health.maryland.gov/.../July-1-marks-namechange-to-Maryland-Department-of Health.aspx.

County after he was found incompetent to stand trial and a danger to himself and others. ECF No. 32.2 On March 13, 2017, Mohapatro was found incompetent to stand trial and not restorable and met
the criteria for involuntary commitment, pursuant to a forensic evaluation. ECF No. 3-3. He was
involuntarily committed to the MDH pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Crim Proc, § 3-106(d)(1). ECF
No. 3-4. Mohapatro remained civilly committed to the MDH until August 24, 2017, when he signed
an Application for Voluntary Admission. He agreed to remain at SHC for care and treatment of his
mental disorder as a voluntary patient. ECF No. 3-5.
While a patient at SHC, Mohapatro was under the care of Drs. Katherine Cinnamon and Ram
Raheja. ECF No. 3-6, Raheja Affidavit. Members of Mohapatro’s treatment team contacted his
brother about his potential discharge and his brother indicated he would assist Mohapatro in
returning to India upon his release from SHC. On September 29, 2017, Mohapatro was discharged
from SHC to Safe Journey House, a residential center which offers an alternative to hospitalization
for adult individuals in psychiatric crisis.3 On November 27, 2017, Mohapatro emailed Dr. Raheja
and indicated he had returned to India. Id.
III. Analysis
“A habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under
Article III, § 2, of the Constitution.” Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all
stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494
U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the
2

All document references are made to the electronic docketing number.

3

See http://www.safejourneyhouse1.com/index.html.
2

lawsuit. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). “This means that,
throughout the litigation, the complainant ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’ ” Spencer, 523
U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). As noted by the Fourth Circuit, “[T]he doctrine of
mootness constitutes a part of the constitutional limits of federal court jurisdiction . . . . [A] case is
moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in
the outcome.” Townes v. Jarvis, 577 F.3d 543, 546 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Hardy,
545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2008).
IV. Conclusion
To the extent that Mohapatro seeks habeas relief from his involuntary commitment, his claim
is moot. As of September 25, 2017, he is no longer in SHC custody and subject to the conditions of
which he complains. See Jackson v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 360 F. Supp. 138, 139 (D. Md.
1973) (release from institution mooted attack on determination of defective delinquency). In effect,
Mohapatro has been afforded the relief he seeks. No equitable relief may be granted. A separate
Order shall be entered denying the petition as moot.4

Date: Jan. 22, 2018

4

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

Because the petition is being denied as moot based upon Mohapatro’s release, the court
need not discuss respondents’ remaining arguments for dismissal.
3