In re: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, IN the INTEREST OF T.T., Respondent.
Page 852
Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21, Arapahoe County
District Court Case No. 14MH13, Honorable Theresa M. Slade,
Judge
Attorney for Respondent: James C. Recht, Castle Rock,
Colorado
Attorneys
for Christopher Ryan, State Court Administrator; Shana Kloek,
Clerk of the Arapahoe County Court; and the Honorable Theresa
Slade: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Emily B. Buckley,
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
OPINION
MÁRQUEZ,
JUSTICE
Page 853
[¶1]
Under section 27-65-107(7), C.R.S. (2018), when a person is
released from short-term treatment for a mental health
condition, the clerk of the district court shall seal the
record in the case and omit the name of the person from the
courts "index of cases." The key question in this
original proceeding is whether "Eclipse," the user
interface of the judicial branchs computerized case
management system, is an "index of cases" as
contemplated by section 27-65-107(7).
[¶2]
This case comes before us in a rather complicated procedural
posture. T.T. seeks to ensure that his name is not linked to
the record of his earlier short-term commitment for treatment
of a mental health condition. In a published, split decision
issued in 2017, the court of appeals held that Eclipse is an
"index of cases" for purposes of section
27-65-107(7) and directed the district court to order that
T.T.s name be omitted from the Eclipse system and any lists
generated from the systems data. People in the Interest
of T.T., 2017 COA 132, ¶¶ 23, 26, 410 P.3d 792, 797-98.
T.T. later attempted to enforce the court of appeals
decision by petitioning the district court for an order
certifying that it had complied with the court of appeals
directive. The district court declined to issue such an order
and instead invited T.T. to set the issue for a hearing at
which testimony could be taken about the feasibility of
compliance with the court of appeals mandate. T.T. instead
filed a motion to enforce the mandate with the court of
appeals, which denied relief for lack of jurisdiction. T.T.
then sought C.A.R. 21 relief in this court, asking us to
direct the district court to comply with the court of
appeals mandate.
[¶3]
We issued a rule to show cause but decline to grant T.T.s
requested relief. As discussed in this opinion, the reference
to "index of cases" in section 27-65-107(7)
contemplates a list of matters before the court that can be
used to locate the actual court records for those matters.
But the Eclipse user interface itself contains no data, and
neither Eclipse nor its underlying database, ICON, functions
as an "index" or list of cases. Thus, contrary to
the court of appeals ruling, section 27-65-107(7) does not
require the court clerk to remove T.T.s name from the
ICON/Eclipse case management system. Moreover, to remove an
individuals name from this case management system would
thwart the courts statutory obligations to link the record
of a short-term mental health case with subsequent cases
involving that individual and to share certain information
with the federal government. Because the district courts
compliance with the court of appeals mandate is neither
warranted nor feasible, we discharge the rule to show cause,
and disapprove of the court of appeals opinion in
T.T.
I. Facts and Procedural History
[¶4]
In January 2014, T.T. was placed in involuntary short-term
mental health treatment. His case was sealed at filing and,
under sections 3.07 and 4.60(b)(5) of Chief Justice Directive
(CJD) 05-01, was accessible only to judges, court staff, and
other authorized department staff unless otherwise directed
by court order. T.T. was released seven days later.
[¶5]
A little over two years after his release, T.T. visited the
Arapahoe County Justice Center and asked the clerk if his
name had been omitted from the index. Although it is unclear
from the record and previous rulings in this case exactly
what information was conveyed to T.T., it appears that, at a
minimum, someone in the clerks office confirmed that the
case existed.[1] T.T. was upset that his
Page 854
name was still linked to his mental health case and requested
that the clerk remove it from the courts index of cases.
When the clerk declined to do so, T.T. filed a motion with
the district court seeking an order requiring the clerk to
remove his name.
[¶6]
T.T. argued that Eclipse is an "index of cases" for
purposes of section 27-65-107(7) and therefore, once T.T.s
mental health case was closed, the clerk was required to seal
the record in the case and remove T.T.s name from Eclipse.
The district court denied the motion. T.T. appealed, and the
court of appeals ordered a limited remand directing the
district court to conduct a hearing and enter findings of
fact and conclusions of law. On remand, the county attorney
argued that the "index of cases" contemplated by
section 27-65-107(7) is the list of open and closed cases
that can be generated using Eclipse, but not Eclipse itself.
Following remand, the district court issued an order granting
T.T.s motion in part and denying it in part.
[¶7]
First, the district court observed that mental health cases
are sealed at filing, and that such files are accessible only
to judges and authorized staff unless the court orders
otherwise. In this case, the file was also accessible by
T.T.s appointed counsel and the county attorney. The
district court explained that the court clerk had properly
sealed and closed T.T.s case, that the file was physically
removed from the mental health case file room and taken to a
locked storage facility, and that it is not accessible to
anyone except certain supervisors without a court order. The
court acknowledged that there exists an "index" of
names and case numbers that is used only to search the ...