Opinion
CA 00-0836-RV-C.
October 25, 2000.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the undersigned for entry of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Plaintiff James Daniel Van Noy filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court on September 14, 2000. Following a complete and thorough review of the complaint, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
"A full-time magistrate judge may issue any preliminary orders and conduct any necessary evidentiary hearing or other appropriate proceeding and shall submit to a district judge a report containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of complaints filed by prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement." SD ALA LR 72.1(d).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiffs complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, simply alleges that John T. Bartlett, the Director of Searcy Hospital, and Dr. William F. Kringel, who is employed in the office of the director of Searcy Hospital, have informed him by letter that Searcy Hospital will mail to him a copy of his 2, 641-page mental health record once he has paid copying costs totaling $1,338.00. (Doc. 1, at 5 6)
Searcy Hospital is a state-supported facility under the jurisdiction of the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. Compare Ala. Code § 22-50-1 with § 2250-15.
2. The claim section of the form complaint reads in its entirety as follows:
I have requested to get all My Mental Health Records and I am indigent and without anything of "Value to My Name[.]" I am "Requesting The Complete Mental Health Records." I am in the Penitentiary System, and I do not have any "Funds" at all. Mr. Bartlett[,] I [,] James D. Van Noy is Requesting to "Receive all My Mental Health Records." This is response to the Letter I got back from Searcy Hospital. By State Statute, We have a fixed cost for copying Records. Your Record is 2,641 pages long and the cost for copying the Record is $1,338.00. The money order should be made payable to Searcy Hospital. Naturally, I will forward a copy of your record to you upon receipt of payment. This is what I have asked Mr. John T. Bartlett. I am trying to save You Mr. Bartlett and Me Mr. Van Noy the hassle of going to Court. To save us a lot of money and time. Let Me Know.
( Id. at 5) The sole relief to which plaintiff claims he is entitled is a free copy of all of his mental health record from Searcy Hospital. ( Id. at 7-8)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The federal in forma pauperis statute provides in relevant part that "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal — (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). The statute mandates dismissal of frivolous complaints or complaints which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted brought by litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1999).
2. A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 183 1-1832, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); see also Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) ("A district court may dismiss as frivolous the complaint of a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact."). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless." Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Neitzke, supra, 490 U.S. at 325, 109 S.Ct. at 1832 ("`[F]rivolous,' when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusions, but also the fanciful factual allegations."). The frivolousness determination is a discretionary one which is "entrusted to the discretion of the [district] court entertaining the in forma pauperis petition." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
3. "A successful section 1983 action requires a showing that the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) deprived the complainant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); see also Almand V. DeKalb County, Georgia, 103 F.3d 1510, 1513 (11th Cir.) ("A successful section 1983 action requires that the plaintiff show she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state."), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 966, 118 S.Ct.411, 139 L.Ed.2d 314 (1997).
4. It is clear from plaintiffs own representation of the letter he received from Kringel that Searcy Hospital is willing to forward to plaintiff a copy of his mental health record once he pays the hospital the costs of copying that record. In his complaint, plaintiff cites to no right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States which the aforementioned conduct of the defendants deprived him of nor can the undersigned unearth any case law establishing a constitutional violation upon the failure of a state mental hospital to provide to an indigent prisoner a free copy of his mental health record. Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is both factually and legally frivolous.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court dismiss plaintiffs complaint against the defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.