Baucom v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 2/24/17: Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. cc: Plaintiff(pro se), General Counsel (DJT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
GARY WAYNE BAUCOM, Jr.
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-P11-TBR
KENTUCKY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Gary Wayne Baucom, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated
this civil action by filing a complaint. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on
other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following reasons, the complaint
will be dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Indiana, sues the Kentucky Department of
Corrections (KDOC) and Doug Sapp, former Commissioner of KDOC. He states that he brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that from 1998 to 2003, during which time
he was confined within the KDOC, he was denied adequate mental health care in violation of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also alleges that Defendants’ failure to provide nonsegregated and non-isolated confinement and additional treatment as “a reasonable
accommodation to prevent confinement conditions which exacerbate [his] mental illness”
violated the Rehabilitation Act and the AmericanS with Disabilities Act (ADA). He states that
he suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid disorder and hearing voices. Plaintiff states,
“Segregated, isolated confinement, and suicide attempts left me subjected to being placed in
‘hobbles’ chained to a steel bunk, and beat as a result of my mental illness and isolated
confinement.”
As relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to certify this case as a class action for “all current and
future mentally ill inmates” in KDOC. He also asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as compensatory and punitive damages.
II. ANALYSIS
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the action, if the
Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore,
dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where
the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining whether a plaintiff
has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a
light most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of
Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a reviewing court must liberally
construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid
dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Request to certify as a class action
Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, four prerequisites exist for class
certification: 1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
2
2) common questions of law or fact must be present among the class; 3) the claims of the
representative party must be typical of the class; and 4) the representative party must be able to
protect fairly and adequately the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see, e.g., Stout v.
J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 717 (6th Cir. 2000). “In this case, no representative party [i]s
available because pro se prisoners are not able to represent fairly the class.” Palasty v. Hawk, 15
F. App’x 197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320,
1321 (10th Cir. 2000); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)). Thus, the
Court declines to certify this case as a class action.
Statute of limitations
According to the complaint, Defendants’ alleged violations of § 1983, the ADA, and the
Rehabilitation Act occurred between 1998 to 2003. The instant action was not filed until 2017.
State statutes of limitations for personal injuries govern claims brought under § 1983, the
ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985); Lewis v.
Fayette Cty. Det. Ctr., No. 99-5538, 2000 WL 556132, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2000); Collard v.
Ky. Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir. 1990). In Kentucky, the applicable limitations
period is one year. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a). “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run
when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action and
that a plaintiff has reason to know of his injury when he should have discovered it through the
exercise of reasonable diligence.” Collard, 896 F.2d at 183 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a court may raise
the issue sua sponte if the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. Fields v. Campbell,
39 F. App’x 221, 223 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Haskell v. Washington Twp., 864 F.2d 1266, 1273
(6th Cir. 1988)).
3
Thus, Plaintiff’s claims arising under § 1983, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act are
subject to the one-year statute of limitations. That limitations period expired more than a decade
before Plaintiff filed the instant action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:
February 24, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel
4413.009
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?