The Trial Division of the High Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss James Barlow’s civil complaint filed in May through his attorney Mark Ude. The complaint was filed for negligence, HIPPA violation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the response from ASG’s assistant attorney general Vincent Kruse, the government sought to dismiss this lawsuit pointing out that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case as plaintiff had not shown any facts to support that the amount in controversy is over $15,000 and also that Ude had failed to provide sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

According to the order to dismiss, the action arose from ASG’s alleged mistreatment of Barlow during incarceration in a criminal proceeding.

“Both the Trial and Appellate Divisions of the High Court have repeatedly instructed plaintiff’s counsel Ude on the standard for initial pleadings, reprimanded counsel for his habitual lack of diligence and dismissed a number of his procedurally and substantively deficient submissions to the High Court,” the order says.

“In this action, Ude has again failed to set forth well pleaded facts that support a plausible claim for relief and therefore the court grants ASG’s motion to dismiss this action for defendant’s failure to state a claim upon which this relief can be granted. The Court again admonishes Ude to exercise a base degree of diligence and competence that the legal profession demands of all practicing attorneys.”

According to the order the complaint failed because it alleges but does not show that Barlow is entitled to relief.

DISCUSSION ON NEGLIGENCE

Barlow’s first case of action alleges that ASG was negligent in responding to his discovery request in a separate unspecified matter. As a result of this delay, Barlow claims he has endured an unnecessarily long pre trial detention period in which he incurred severe injuries, and plaintiffs failed to provide the court with information in his complaint identifying this “phantom” case. As to elements of a negligence claim, Barlow has failed to establish duty, causation and damages, the order says.

VIOLATION OF HIPPA PRIVACY RIGHTS

Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleges that ASG violated his HIPPA privacy rights. According to the order this cause of action offers a litany of “naked assertions, poorly pleaded facts and conclusory legal statements that cannot survive a motion to dismiss.”

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED)

Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges that ASG’s failure to properly supervise and protect plaintiff and his fellow inmates has caused him undue emotional distress. “NIED is not an independent tort but instead rests on a claim of negligence and, as such the question of whether plaintiffs can recover damages for NIED is dependent upon traditional tort analysis and the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages must exist to support the cause of action.

“Though we have no doubt that ASG and TCF officials have a duty to supervise inmates in their custody, plaintiff largely leaves it to the court to identify this duty and does not clearly articulate how ASG breached the duty.”

Regarding the last claims of intentional infliction of emission distress (IIED), plaintiff presents a “muddled jumble of seemingly random naked assertions and asks the court to divine a cognizable cause of action for NIED from that slurry.”