Rembold v. Helsel et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/23/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6.24.16)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

DONALD GARY REMBOLD
Petitioner,

*

v.

*

DAVID HELSEL, M.D.
Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION NO. PWG-16-1569

*
*****
MEMORANDUM

On June 19, 2015, in a separate action, Donald Gary Rembold ("Rembold") filed a 28
U.S.C.

S

2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of

counsel throughout the pretrial process of his criminal case and had been committed to a mental
hospital without due process. He sought release from confinement.

See ECF NO.1 in Rembold

v. Helsel ("Rembold F'), No. PWG-15-1825 (D. Md.).
The briefing in Rembold I showed that on April 7, 2014, Rembold was arraigned in the
Circuit Court for Harford County on multiple counts of sexual abuse of a minor and third degree
sex offense. On January 28, 2015, the circuit court issued an order f?r the Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene ("DHMH") to conduct an evaluation of Rembold's competency to stand
trial. Dr. Kim Witczak, a forensic evaluator for the DHMH, examined Rembold at the Harford
County Detention Center on January 30, 2015, and opined that he did not have a factual and
rational understanding of the nature and object of the proceeding against him, nor did he possess
sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
She further concluded that Rembold would present a danger to himself or to others if released
from confinement. See ECF NO.7 in Rembold 1.

On February 6, 2015, the Circuit Court issued an order finding Rembold incompetent to
stand trial and, by reason of mental disorder, a danger to himself or the person or property of
another.

The order committed Rembold to the custody of the DHMH until he becomes

competent. The order requiring Rembold's commitment was based on the evaluation performed
by Dr. Witczak and required Rembold's

immediate transportation to Spring Grove Hospital

Center ("SGHC") or another facility designated by DHMH. Rembold was admitted to SGHC on
February 13,2015. Id.
Pursuant to state law, the DHMH evaluates persons committed as not competent to stand
trial at least every six months. See Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc.

S 3-108(a).

Rembold was re-

evaluated in July of2015 by Dr. Lindsay D. Holbein. Dr. Holbein concluded that Rembold was
competent to stand trial and did not suffer from any psychiatric illness.

Additionally, Dr.

Holbein noted that Rembold's treatment team did not believe he had a psychiatric illness and that
no medications had been prescribed for Rembold during his stay at the SGHC. Counsel for the
DHMH subsequently requested the Circuit Court hold a hearing by August 28, 2015, pursuant to
Crim. Proc.

S 3-106(c)(l)(iii).

On September 3, 2015, Rembold was found competent to stand

trial by the Circuit Court for Harford County, released from SGHC, and remanded to the custody
of the Harford County Detention Center where he remains at this time. lId.
On September 14,2015, this Court dismissed Rembold I without prejudice. See ECF No.
7 in Rembold I.
On May 20, 2016, Rembold initiated this action by filing another 28 U.S.C.

S 2241

petition seeking declaratory relief and unspecified damages for his previous confinement at

Rembold's trial on sex offense charges concluded on April 12, 2016. See State of
Maryland v. Rembold, Case Nos. 12K14000396 & 12K14000397 (Harford Co. Cir. Ct.);
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.uslinquiry
("State Ct. Docket").
The electronic docket shows that
sentencing is currently scheduled for July 20, 2016. Id.

2

SGHC, claiming that he was housed at the facility for 202 days without being diagnosed as
having a mental health disorder.
motion.

ECF NO.1.

The petition was accompanied by an indigency

ECF NO.2. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted.
This Court's limited review of this matter focuses on whether circumstances exist in this

case that would permit Rembold to access federal habeas relief prior to the completion of his
state criminal trial. Pretrial federal habeas relief is available under ~ 2241 if the petitioner is in
custody, has exhausted

state court remedies,

and special circumstances

exist that justify

intervention by the federal court. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F. 2d 220, 224-26 (5th Cir.
1987). Exhaustion is established where both the operative facts and controlling legal principles
of each claim have been fairly presented to the state courts. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d
276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Here, special circumstances justifying this Court's intervention do not exist because
Rembold is no longer confined at the SGHC. The issue regarding the validity of his confinement
at Spring Grove is therefore moot. "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-orcontroversy 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 lawsuit. Id. at 478 (quoting Los
Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). "This means that, throughout the litigation, the
plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant
and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'''
Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).

3

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting

To the extent there remams an issue regarding the validity of Rembold's

pretrial

incarceration in the Harford County Detention Center, this Court must abstain from considering
the merits of that claim.
jurisdiction

In the pretrial context, federal courts must abstain from exercising

over a claim that may be resolved through trial of the merits or by other state

procedures available for review of the claim. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S.
484, 489-90 (1973).

The petition will therefore be dismissed without prejudice by separate

Order. 2

Date: ~

2--~l 4J4"
Paul
. Grimm
United States District Judge

2
To the extent that Rembold wishes to seek damages from alleged due process violations
related to his detention at SGHC in 2015, he may file a civil rights action in this Court requesting specific
damages. The proper forms shall be sent to him.

4