Gresham v. Balt. Police Dep't

261 Md.App. 723

315 A.3d 766

Donald GRESHAM, et al.

v.BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 0307, Sept. Term, 2023

Appellate Court of Maryland.

March 27, 2024

[261 Md. 728]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-22-005368, Jeffrey M. Geller, Judge.

Argued by Donald Gresham, Joan Floyd & Kushan Ratnayake, Baltimore, MD, on brief, for Appellant.

[261 Md. 729]

Argued by Melissa O. Martinez, McGuireWoods LLP, Baltimore, MD (Ava E. Lias-Booker & Nicholas B. Jordan of McGuireWoods LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.

Argued before: Nazarian, Leahy, Alexander Wright, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Nazarian, J.

In 2019, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Community Safety and Strengthening Act. The legislation authorized The Johns Hopkins University to create a campus police force. Once the law was effective, Johns Hopkins and the Baltimore Police Department signed a Memorandum of Understanding that established the future police department’s responsibilities, limitations, and jurisdiction. Before this though, Donald Gresham, Joan Floyd, and Kushan Ratnayake (the "Challengers") filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking ostensibly to challenge the Memorandum. However, they dismissed the first suit voluntarily. Weeks after the dismissal, they sued again, this time seeking a declaratory judgment against Johns Hopkins and the Baltimore City Police defining the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the Memorandum and, it seems, to declare the Memorandum (and the impending Johns Hopkins Police Department) "invalid, null and void." Johns Hopkins moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that (1) the Challengers lacked standing, (2) their claims weren’t ripe, (3) the complaint raised nonjusticiable political questions, and (4) even if justiciable, the complaint failed to state a claim. The circuit court dismissed the case on all four grounds, the Challengers appeal, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND¹

A. The Community Safety And Strengthening Act.

During its 2019 Session, the Maryland General Assembly considered Senate Bill 793, the "Community Safety and

[261 Md. 730]

Strengthening Act" (the "Act"). The purpose of the Act was to authorize The Johns Hopkins University ("Johns Hopkins" or "JHU") to create its own police force. Eventually, the bill passed and, after the Governor signed, was codified as Maryland Code (2019, 2022 Repl. Vol.), § 24-1201 et seq. of the Education Article ("ED").

The Act required Johns Hopkins, as a condition of establishing and maintaining its police force, to implement standards for its police officers (under ED § 24-1203) and enter a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD"). See ED § 24-1202. Importantly, the Act limited the JHU Police Department’s ("JHUPD") jurisdiction to an area known as the "campus area." The campus area includes, and save for transient exceptions is limited to, property owned, leased, operated or controlled by Johns Hopkins and the immediately adjacent public property:

(c)(1) "Campus area" means any property that is:

(i) Owned, leased, operated by, or under the control of the University;

(ii) Located on:

1. The Homewood campus, meaning the area bounded by West University Parkway and East University Parkway on the north, East 28th Street and West 28th Street on the south, Remington Avenue and Stony Run stream on the west, and North Calvert Street on the east;

2. The East Baltimore campus, meaning the area bounded by East Eager Street on the north, East Baltimore Street on the south, North Caroline Street on the west, and North Castle Street on the east; or

3. The Peabody campus, meaning the area bounded by West Madison Street and East Madison Street on the

[261 Md. 731]

north, East Hamilton Street and West Hamilton Street on the south, Cathedral Street on the west, and Saint Paul Street on the east; and

(iii) Used for educational or institutional purposes.

(2) "Campus area" includes the public property that is immediately adjacent to the campus, including:

(i) A sidewalk, a street, or any other thoroughfare; and

(ii) A parking facility.

ED § 244201(c). The Act allows the JHUPD to exercise its powers beyond the campus area only if (1) the majority of individuals from nearby communities agree and (2) the Baltimore City Council approves a resolution that confirms community support. ED § 24-1202(2)(ii). To date, neither of these conditions has been met (or attempted).

B. The Memorandum Of Understanding.

On September 23, 2022, the Challengers filed suit against Johns Hopkins, BPD, and the State of Maryland "seeking an injunction preventing BPD from entering into the MOU." They alleged that a charter amendment on the ballot for the November 2022 election would, if approved, transfer control over BPD from the State of Maryland to the City of Baltimore.

In the meantime, the MOU was published for review and comment, as required by the Act. Specifically, the parties:

(1) Post[ed] publicly the proposed memorandum of understanding document for 30 days on [a] website available to the public;

(2) [P]rovid[ed] the Baltimore City Council 30 days after the public posting period specified in item (1) of this subsection to review and submit written comments to the University on the proposed memorandum of understanding;

(3) [P]rovide[d] affected individuals, neighborhoods, community groups, and local officials with an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed memorandum of understanding; and

[261 Md. 732]

(4) [H]ost[ed] at least two public forums to present the proposed memorandum of understanding; (i) one of which [JHU] [held] on or near the Homewood and Peabody campuses; and (ii) one of which [JHU] [held] on or near the East Baltimore campus.

Subsequently, on December 2, 2022, JHU and the BPD executed the MOU. Among its provisions, the MOU restricted the JHUPD’s jurisdiction to the "campus area."

Finally, the Challengers’ attempts to obtain an injunction failed and they dismissed their first suit voluntarily on December 7, 2022.

C. Pertinent Procedural History.

On December 30, 2022, the Challengers filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment stating that the MOU is "invalid, null and void" and cannot be "replaced, corrected, or ‘cured’ " by JHUPD and BPD after BPD becomes an agency and instrumentality of Baltimore City. They argued that the multiple issues with the MOU authorized the circuit court to "determine and adjudicate the rights, status, powers, responsibilities and liabilities of the [Challengers] and [BPD and JHU] with respect to the [MOU]." One of the alleged issues includes JHU’s mapping of the "campus area" which, they contended, included properties outside of its limited jurisdiction. Other alleged problems are that the MOU "assigned policing powers and responsibilities to a non-existent law enforcement agency" and that the Challengers allege a right to live in and travel to and from their homes without being subjected to "the policing powers of University officers that are unlawfully established and exercised." Finally, the Challengers asserted that because of the supposed uncertainties and inaccuracies surrounding the MOU, they had the right to know which law enforcement agency had jurisdiction over the properties near their homes. Ultimately, the complaint asked the court to declare the MOU invalid, and incurably so.

In response, JHU and BPD moved to dismiss the Challengers’ complaint in February 2023. After a hearing on March 20,

[261 Md. 733]

2023, the circuit court dismissed the Challengers’ complaint on four alternative grounds: (1) they lacked standing to challenge the MOU, (2) their complaints about the MOU weren’t ripe, (3) their challenges to the MOU were nonjusticiable political questions, and (4) even if justiciable, their allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Challengers appealed timely. We supply additional facts as necessary below.

II. DISCUSSION

The Challengers raise four issues on appeal,² which we rephrase: whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the Challengers’ declaratory judgment claim based on (1) standing, (2) ripeness, (3) the political question doctrine, and (4) failure to state a claim. For reasons stated below, we affirm.

[1] " ‘[T]he standard of review of the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is whether the trial court was legally correct.’ " Lipp v. State, 246 Md. App. 105, 110, 227 A.3d 818 (2020) (quoting Howard v. Crumlin, 239 Md. App. 515, 521, 197 A.3d 574 (2018)).

[261 Md. 734]

A. The Challengers’ Declaratory Judgment Allegations Are Not Justiciable.

The Challengers’ first overall contention is that the circuit court erred in dismissing their case on three different justiciability grounds. As we discuss below, though, the circuit court concluded properly that (1) the Challengers lacked standing to challenge the MOU, (2) their claims were not ripe in any event, and (3) their claims raised nonjusticiable political questions.

1. The Challengers lack standing to bring these claims.

[2] Not just anyone can file a lawsuit. " ‘[S]tanding … [goes] to the very heart of whether the controversy before the court is justiciable.’ " State of Md. Comm’n on Hum. Rels. v. Anne Arundel County, 106 Md. App. 221, 236, 664 A.2d 400 (1995) (quoting Sipes v. Bd. of Mun. & Zoning Appeals, 99 Md. App. 78, 87-88, 635 A.2d 86 (1994)). Plaintiffs can establish standing in three different ways: (1) general standing, (2) property owner standing, and (3) taxpayer standing. The Challengers don’t specify the form of standing they claim to have, but the circuit court held, and we agree, that they cannot satisfy the requirements for any category.

a. The Challengers’ claims can’t confer general standing.

[3–7] To begin, the Challengers lack general standing. "The requirement of standing ‘is designed to ensure that a party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute...