# FILED April 24, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

______________________________________________ MOHAMED F. ALI, M.D., Plaintiff-Appella

nt, Vs. Washington Law No. 15924 C.A. No. 03A01-9708-CV-00347 FREDIA MOORE, DANN Y (PAT) STORY, AMERICA’S M OST WANTED and FOX TELEVISION BROADCASTING, Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ _____________________________________________________ _ FROM THE LAW COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY THE HONORABLE G. RICHARD JOHNSON
Mohamed F. Ali, M.D., Pro Se, of Mountain City Donald L. Zachary, Sue E. McClure; Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC of Nashville, For Appellee, Fox Television Broadcasting

VACATED IN PART, AFFIRMED I N PART AND REMANDED Opinion filed:

W. FRANK CRAWFORD,

PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.

CONCUR: ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE DAVID R. FARMER,

JUDGE
This is an action for de

famation and viola

tion of consti

tutional rights. Plaintiff/Appellant1 Ali erroneously sued Fox Broadcasting Company under the name, “Fox Television

Broadcasting.”

2 Fredia Moore and Danny (Pat) Story were also named as defendants, but they are not involved in this a

ppeal.
3 This indictment was

later dismissed due

to a technicality b

ut it was subsequen

tly reinstated. 2 Moham ed F. Ali, M.D. sued Defendant/Appellee Fox Television Broadcasting (Fox), 1 fo r defamation and for

relief under 42 U .S.C. § 1983 as a result of two tele

vision broadcasts
. 2 The trial court granted summary judgment to Fox and subsequent

ly made the order

final pursuant to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 54. 02 . The trial court also enjoined Ali from filing future pro se actions. Ali appeals. Facts and Procedural History Prior to December of 1989, Ali was a family physician practicing in Johnson City, Tennessee. In July of 1989, Defendan t Fred ia Moore, a patie nt of Ali, visited Ali

pursuant to
an appointment. Immed

iately thereafter, Moore reported to the police that she had been

sexually assaulted by Ali while she was under the influence of an injection. It was alleged that Ali later attempted to bribe Moore and her husband in exchange for their efforts to have the rape charge drop pe d. Ali was indicted in December of 1989 on one count of rape and two counts of att empte d bribery. 3 Ali was arrested and released after posting a $100,000 bond through Defendant

Danny Stor y, a b ail bondsman. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners suspended Ali’s medical lice nse on December

15, 1989. Moore br

ought a civil suit against

Ali for the alleged rape in January of 1990, and obtained a $4 million default judgment in June of 1991. Around June of 1990, Ali left the United States. On August 14, 1992, Fox, a television broadcasting network, fed to its affiliated sta

ti ons an episode of t

he television prog

ram, America’s Most Wanted . The episode featured the rape and briber

y charges brough

t against Ali and the fact that

his whereabouts were unknown. The episode included interviews with Moore and a police officer, as well as a narration and re-enactment of the alleged rape and bribery incidents. A viewer of the e pisode contacted

the authorities an

d reported that he

had seen Ali in Cairo, Egypt. A subsequent undercover investigation by Story ultimately led to the return of Ali to the United States in October of 1992. Fox proceeded to broadcast a

follow-up program4 America’s Most Wanted was later stricken as a defendant, since it is not a legal

entity.
5 The trial court dismissed a motion by Ali to set aside this order. 3 on Ali’s capture in an America’s Most Wanted episode aired on October 30, 1992. In September of

1993, a jury convicted Ali of rape and one count of attempted bribery. Apparently

Ali was acquitted of charges of failing to appear and skipping bail. On October 27, 1993, Ali filed this actio n against Moore, alleging defama tion and the violatio

n of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ali filed an Amended Complaint o n April 18, 1994, adding as parties defendant Story, Fox, and America’s Most Wanted
. 4 Fox moved for summary

judgment, arguing t

hat Ali’s claim is

ba rred by the statute of limitations and that he has fa iled to establish the

elements of a def

amation claim. Fox a

lso asserted that Ali can not

state a constitutio

nal claim against Fo

x, since Fox is not a s

tate actor. The trial c ourt g ranted summary ju dgment to Fox on Augus t 22, 1996, without ex

plaining its reasoning, and on February 4, 1997, made the order final pursuant to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. 5 The suit against the remaining defendants was scheduled for trial. Ali, however,requested a nonsuit
on the day before tr

ial, and the trial c

ourt dismissed the su

it without prejudice on April 30, 1997. Moore proceeded to request Rule 11 sanctions. Although Moore withdrew her requ est for sanctions on the date of the h earing, the tria

l court sua sponte permanently enjoin ed Ali from filing pro se actions in the First Judicial District and appointed a local attorney to represent Ali for any future me

ritorious claims.

Issues The first issue fo

r review is: 1. Whether

the trial court

erred in grantin

g summary judgment to Defendant Fox? A motion for

summary judgment should be granted when the movant demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law. T

enn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Bain v. Wells , 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997). On a motion f or summary judgmen

t, the court must take

the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in fav or of the nonmoving

party, allow all

reasonable inferences6 The statute of limitations for slander is only six months and the discovery rule does

not apply. T.C.A. § 28-3-103 (1980); Quality Auto Parts Co. v. Bluff City Buick Co., 876 S.W.2d 818, 820-22 (Tenn. 1994). 4 in favor of that

party, and discard all countervailing evidence. Id. In Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993), our Supreme Court stated: Once it is shown by the moving party that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must then demonstrate, by affidavits or discovery materials, that there is a genuine, mate rial fact dispute

to warrant a trial . In this regard, Rule 56.05 provides that the nonmoving party cannot simply rely upon his pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genu ine issue of material

fact for trial. Id. at 211 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Summary judgment is only appr opriate when the

facts and the legal conclusions drawn from the facts reasonab

ly permit only

one conclusion. Carvell v. Bottoms , 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995). Since only questions of law are involved, there is no presumption of correctness regarding a trial court's grant of summary judgment. Bain , 936 S.W.2d at 622. Therefore, our review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo on the record be fore this Court. Warren v. Estate of Ki

rk , 954 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tenn. 1997). W e fir st a d d r e s s A li’s lib e l cl a i m agai nst Fox. The t r i a l cour t appar ent l y aw a r ded s u m m a r y j udgm ent t o Fox based on A l i ’ s f a i l u r e t o com p l y w ith th e sta t u t e o f lim ita tio n s a n d / o r A li’s fa ilu r e to est abl i sh a pri m a fa c i e cl a i m for lib e l . No repor t ed case i n T ennessee has di

rec t l y add res sed w het her a t e l evi s i on b roadcast should be desi

gnated as l i bel
or s l ander. T here i s no cl ear consensus am

ong our si s t er s t a t es concerni ng thi s i s s ue. See 50 A

m .Jur
.2d Libel & Sl ander § 10 (1995). T he “m ost preval ent ” vie w , how ever, i s t hat broadcast s s hou l d be co nsi dered as l i bel ; p a rtic u l a rly i f t hey are based on w

r i t t en scr i p t s . Jef f r ey F
.G hent, A nno t a tio n , Defamation by Radio or Television ,

50 A
. L . R
.3d 1311, 1319 ( 1973) ; see also R

e s t a t e m ent ( Second) of Tort s § 568A (1976)

( “Broadc a s t i n g o f defam a t ory m a t t er b y m eans of r adi o or t e l evi s i on i s l i bel , w het her or not i t i s r ead f r o m a m anus c r i p t . ” )
. I n t h e i nst ant ca se, i t w o u ld ap p e ar that t h e bro a d c a s t should be cl ass i f i ed as l i bel ; part i cul arl y si nce i t w as based on a prepared
s c rip t . I n any eve n t , a des i gnat i o n of the bro a d c a st as l ibel en h a n c es the ap p e l l a n t ’ s po sit ion in t he present case, si nce t he l i bel st a t u t e of l i m i t a t i ons i s m o r e f avor abl e t o a pl a i n t i f f
. 6 T h e epi sode s of America’s Most Wanted

at i s s ue w ere ai red nat i onw i de on A ugu s t 14, 1992 an d O c t ober 30, 1992. A l i ’s o rigin al C o m p lain t , li sting o n ly M o o r e as a def endan t , w as f i l ed on O c t ober 27, 199 3 . A l i ’ s A m ended C o m p l a i n t , addi ng Fox as a def endant , w a s f i l ed on A p r i l 18, 1994. A n act i on f o r l i bel m ust be brough t “w i t h i n on e (1) year af t er t he cause of act

i on accrued. ” T

. C
. A
. § 28- 3 - 1045

(a)(1 ) ( Supp. 1997)
.I

n Applewhite v. Memphis

State Univ. ,

495 S. W
. 2 d 190 , 195 (Tenn
.197 3), t he C ourt hel d t hat a cause o f act i on f o r l i bel acc r ues on t he dat e t hat t he al l eged l i bel i s publ i she d i n t he count y t hat t he ac t i on i s b r ought
.T he Applewhite holdi

ng w a s in th e context of a m ass pub l i cat i on o f a book. A

l i argues t hat t he dis covery r u l e shoul d appl y i n t he pr e s ent cas e . A l i m a i n t a i n s t hat si nce he w as overs eas, he did not di

scover and reas

onab l y cou l d not have dis covered t he F ox b roadcast s unt i l he ret urned t o t he U n i t e d S tat es. I n fac t , A l i i nsi s t s i n his pl eadi ngs t hat he di d not becom e “f u l l y aw a r e of t he exa c t cont ent s ” of t he al l eged l i bel unt i l ar ound t he end of June 1993. I n Quality Auto Parts Co. v. Bluff City Buick Co. , 876 S. W
. 2d 818, 820- 22 ( Tenn. 1994) ,

th e T ennessee Supre m e Court hel d that t h e disco v e ry ru le do es n ot ap ply to the sland er stat ute o f l i m i t ati o n s .In Leedom
v. Bell , N o . 03A 01-970 4-C V -00136 , 199 7 W L 671 918 (Tenn
.A pp. O c t .29, 1997) , t h i s C ourt fi r s t consi dered w het her t h e di s c over y r u l e s houl d be appli e d t o an ac t i on f o r l i bel
.The i s s ue i n Leedom , how

ever , w a s nar r o w ed t o t he cont ext o f lib e l th a t w as not rea d i l y accessi b l e t o t he gen era l pub l i c . Id. at *6. The C our t not ed t hat t he “de c i ded m oder n t r end i n A m erican juri spru d en c e ” is i n f avor of appl y i ng t he di s c over y r u l e i n “l i m i t ed s i t uat i ons where t he al l egedl y l i bel ous s t a t e m ent occurr e d i n pri vat e or confi denti a l pub l i cat i ons w h ich are not rea d i l y avail abl e t o t he plai n t i f f or t he gen era l pub l i c . ” Id. at *7. A dvo cat i ng thi s m odern t rend, t he C ourt quo t ed app rovi ngly t he f o l l o w i ng st a t e m ent by t h e M i s s i s s i ppi Supre m e Court : W e ar e convi nced t hat t he gene r a l pol i c i e s under l y i ng t he s t a t u t e o f lim ita tio n s w ill not be t h w art ed by adop t i on o f t he dis covery rul e i n t hat l i m i t ed cl ass of l i bel cases w h i ch, because of

the secretive or i

nherently undiscoverable nature o f the pu blication t

he pl a i n t i f f di d not know , or w i t h r eas onabl e d i l i gence coul d n o t h ave dis covered, t hat he had been d efa m ed. In s uch rar e i nst ances, w e do not bel i eve t hat a pl a i n t i f f can be acc use d of sl eepi ng on hi s rig h t s . Id. ( quot i ng Staheli v. Smith ,

548 So. 2d 1299,

1303 ( M i s s .1989) ) ( e m phas i s a dded)
. T h e i nst ant case pr e s ent s a deci dedl y di f f e r ent f act ual sc enar i o . A t t h e t i m e of t he fi r s t broadcast , on O c t ober 30, 1992, A l i w as i n E gyp t , having l eft t he cou n t ry af t er he w as r e l eased on b a i l
.A s s u m i ng that t h e br oadca s t w a s not aire d i n Egypt, A l i ’ s f a i l u r e t o di s c over t he br oadca s t w a s due t o hi s own behavi

o r . Cf. Teeters v. Curry ,

518 S . W . 2 d 51 2, 51 7 (T

e n n. 19 7 4 ) (“[T

]he pu bli c p oli c y of o ur state i s op p o sed to req uiri n g that su it b e file d w hen circumstances totally beyond the control of the injured party m ake i t i m poss i b l e f o r hi m t o br i ng sui t .” (em phasi s added ) )
.M ore i m port ant l y , how ever, i t i s undi sput ed t hat at t he t i m e of t he s econd br oadca s t , A l i w as back i n t he U n i t e d Stat es, and the broadcast

w as nei t her “s ecr e t i ve” no r of an “i nher ent l y undi s c over abl e nat u r e . ” The se cond broadcast repeat ed a l arge par

t of t he fi r s t broadcast and am p l y provided A

l i of not i ce t hereof
.U nder th e f act s of t h i s case, A li is n o t e n title d to rel y on t he dis covery rul e , and A l i ’ s sui t fi l ed against Fo x on A pri l 18, 1994, m ore t han si x t een
m o n ths after t h e sec o n d b roa d c ast, is barred by the o n e -ye ar stat ute o f l i m i t ati o n s .6 A l i ’ s 42 U. S . C
.§ 1983 act i o n i s l i kew i se bar red f or t he reas ons st a t ed abo ve, beca

use suc h act i on m ust be f i l ed w i t h i n one yea r af t e r t he ca use of act i on acc r ues .T. C
. A
.§ 28- 3 - 104 ( a )

( 3 )
. T h e sec o n d issue for rev iew is: 2 . W het her t he t r i a l court err ed i n grant i ng D efe ndan t Fo x a fi nal j udg m ent und e r Tenn. R
.C i v .P. 54? S o m e t i m e af t e r t he t r i a l cour t gr ant ed s u m m a r y j udgm ent t o Fox, t he or der w a s m ade f i nal pur sua n t t o Tenn
. R . C i v . P . 54. 02.A l i contends t hat t he entr y of f i nal j udg m ent w as i m proper s i nce t he t r i a l j udg e t hat ent ere d fi nal j udgm ent , Judge Johns on, w a s di f f e r ent t han t h e tr ial judg e tha t gran ted su m m ary judg m e n t , Jud g e S e e ley. A l i also a l l eges t hat Judge John son should have recused

h i m s e lf from t he case due to bi

as and con f l i c t s of i n t ere s t s ; nam e l y A l i
ass ert s t hat Judge John son i s r e l a t ed t o and repr esent ed A l i ’ s w i fe bef ore becom i ng a judge. T enn. R. Civ. P. 54. 02 p rovi des i n pert i nent par t : W hen m ore t han one clai m for rel i ef i s pr esent i n an acti on, w het her as a cl a i m , coun t erc l a i m , cros s - c l a i m , or t h i rd par t y cl a i m , or w hen m u l t i p l e part i es ar e i nvol ved, t he cou r t , w het her at l a w or i n equ i t y , m ay dir ect t he en try o f fi nal j udgm ent as t o one or m o r e but f e w e r t han al l of t h e cl a i m s or par t i e s onl y upon a n express det erm i nat i on that t here i s no j ust r eas on f o r del a y an d u p o n a n e x p ress d i r ect i on f o r t he ent r y of j udgm ent . A s m ent i oned previ ousl y , t he t r i a l cour t pr oper l y gr ant ed s u m m a r y j udgm ent t o Fox. B eca use “no j ust r eas on f o r del ay” exi s t ed, th e tria l cour t cor r ect l y m ade t h e or der a f i nal j udgm ent . Id. A l i ’s c o n ten t i o n s a re w h o l l y w i t h o u t m erit. A l i ’ s volunt ary nonsui t di d not appl y t o Fo x , si nce fi nal j udg m ent had b een ent e r ed on beha l f of Fox bef o r e A l i t ook a nons u i t . T h e thi rd issue fo r review

is: 3 . W het her t he t r i a l court err ed i n i m posi ng sancti ons against pl a i n t i f f ? A fte r Al i nonsui t e d h is cl aim ag ainst t h e rem aining de fen d a nts, M o o re m o v e d for R ule 1 1 sa n c t i o n s .T his request w a s w i t hdr a w n on t he dat e of t he hea r i ng.The t r i a l cour t , never t hel e s s , ent e r ed an or der per m anent l y enjo i n i n g A l i fr o m filin g pro se a c tio n s in th e F irs t J u d i c i a l D i s tri c t. T h e tri a l c o u rt, h o w ever, appo i n t e d a l ocal at t o r ney t o repr esent A l i for any p o t ent i a l m eri t ori ous cla i m s t hat m ay ari se i n t he fut ure. N o t w i t hst andi n g t he l audab l e object i ve of t he t r i a l cour t ’ s order , w e fi nd that such an o rder

vio l a t es t he op e n c o urts prov isi o n of the T e n n e ssee C o n sti tut ion. T e n n. C o n st. A r t .I, § 1 7, w hich stat es: T hat al l cour t s s hal l be open; and eve r y m an, f o r an i n j u r y done hi m i n hi s l ands , goods, per son or r eput a t i on, sha l l have r e m edy by due cou

r s e of l a w , and r i ght and j ust i ce a d m i n i s t e r ed w i t hout sa l e , deni a l , or del ay. ... Id.; See Whitaker v. Whitaker , 957 S. W
. 2d 834, 838- 39 ( Tenn. A

pp.1997)
. T h e or der of t he t r i a l cour t enjo i n i ng def endant f r o m f i l i ng any pr o se act i on i s va cat ed. The orde r of t h e tria l
cou r t i n all o the r res p e c ts is affirm

e d . T h is ca s e is rem a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt for s u c h fu rthe r p r o c e e d ing s a s a r e7

necessar y . C ost s on app eal are ass ess ed against t he app e l l ant .

_________________________________ W. FRANK CRAWFORD, PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S. CONCUR:

____________________________________ ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE

____________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER,

JUDGE