Baine v. Allen et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 07/25/2017. (KBB)

FILED
2017 Jul-26 AM 08:09
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
MARK ANTHONY BAINE,
Plaintiff,

vs.
RICHARD ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
5:17-cv-01023-AKK-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark Anthony Baine, a state prisoner, filed this action alleging claims
against Richard Allen, Kim Thomas, Billy Mitchum, Dewayne Estes, and the
Alabama Department of Corrections for invasion of privacy for publishing his
confidential medical information on the internet. See generally doc. 1.1 The
magistrate judge filed a report on July 10, 2017, recommending that this court
dismiss Baine’s claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
(to the extent the court construes Baine’s claims as alleging violations of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Privacy Act, or the United
States Constitution), and decline supplemental jurisdiction to the extent that only
state law invasion of privacy claims remain. See doc. 6 at 12. The magistrate
judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within
1

Specifically, Baine asserts that, from August 2006 until May 2013, “Named defendants
[publicized] medical confidentiality (HIV status) on the Ala. Dept. Corrections website by
stating that [Baine] was housed at Limestone “Special Unit” and declaring “Special Unit is for
HIV inmate.” Doc. 1 at 2–3. Baine learned about the publication in September 2013. Id. at 2.
1

fourteen days, id. at 12–13, and Baine timely filed objections, see doc. 7.
Baine asserts first that the § 1983 complaint form’s directive that the
petitioner “state briefly the grounds on which you base your allegation that your
constitutional rights are being violated” does not “allow [a] petitioner the
opportunity to argue or cite case law or arguments” and, therefore, is unfair. Id. at
2.

However, courts are required to screen prisoner complaints in order to

determine whether the factual allegations, accepted as true, state a basis upon
which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) & (b)(1) (“The court shall
review, . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. . . . On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint . . . , if the complaint – . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted . . . .”). Moreover, Baine fails to cite any binding
authority in his objections submission indicating that the magistrate judge failed to
properly apply the law to Baine’s factual allegations. Accordingly, this objection
is OVERRULED.
Baine asserts next that he has not received an “opportunity to be heard.” See
id. at 2–3. This objection is OVERRULED, because the procedure allowing
Baine to submit objections to the Report and Recommendation, as Baine has done
here, provided Baine an opportunity to explain why he believes the magistrate
2

judge’s Report and Recommendation is erroneous.
Third, Baine’s assertion that the court cannot determine that defendants are
not “responsible for publicizing the fact that [he] [is] HIV positive to the entire
world” because defendants “have yet to deny or show any evidence that they did
not do exactly as [Baine] claim[s],” id. at 3, is misplaced. When analyzing the
sufficiency of a complaint, the court accepts the plaintiff’s factual allegations as
true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.”). Here, the magistrate judge found that, even accepting as true the
facts presented on the face of the complaint, Baine’s allegations failed to give rise
to a plausible federal claim. See doc. 6 at 12. Moreover, as the magistrate judge
notes, “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction . . . .”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Accordingly, this objection is

OVERRULED.
Finally, Baine states that the magistrate judge’s determination that his §
1983 claim is untimely “does not stand up to controlling law in this Circuit.” Id. at
4. “A 1983 claim is a tort action that is subject to the statute of limitations that
governs personal injury claims in the state where the § 1983 action is filed. The
applicable limitations period in Alabama is two years.” Grayson v. Warden, 672 F.
3

App’x 956, 962 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (1975)). Baine alleges
that he learned about the publication of his medical information in September
2013, and he filed his complaint in June 2017. Accordingly, the magistrate judge
correctly determined that any § 1983 claim is untimely, and this objection is
OVERRULED.
For these reasons, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s
report is due to be ADOPTED, and his recommendation ACCEPTED.
Consequently, Baine’s claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice. The court
will enter a final order in accordance with the foregoing.
DONE the 25th day of July, 2017.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4