LeFors v. Langston et al
Filing
7
ORDER dismissing without prejudice LeFor's complaint. LeFors's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel service in this case, 6 , is denied as moot. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/30/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
HERMAN H. LEFORS, JR.
ODOC #112524
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 3:14-cv-276-DPM-JTR
DAN LANGSTON, Sheriff, Greene County
Arkansas; COLIN P. WALL, Attorney,
Rainwater, Holt and Sexton, P A;
DR. STEVEN M. BLANCHARD, Physician
for Greene County Jail; SAMMIE JOHNSON,
Nurse, Greene County Jail; and THOMAS
MARSH, Compliance Officer, AMMC
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. LeFors has filed this prose action alleging that defendants violated
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d,
and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution when
they fraudulently obtained copies of his private medical records before the
execution of a medical release. The Court must screen LeFors's allegations.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2. LeFors's HIPPA and constitutional challenges to the production of
his medical records have already been raised and addressed during discovery
in LeFors v. Langston, 3:14-cv-138- KGB-JJV, NQ 60, 61, & 90, which is currently
pending in this District. Any arguments LeFors wishes to make regarding the
production of his medical records must be raised in that lawsuit to avoid
unwarranted relitigation.
3. LeFors's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Lefors's petition
for a writ of mandamus to compel service in this case, NQ 6, is denied as moot.
The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and
accompanying Judgment will not be taken in good faith.
28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. rY
United States District Judge
-2-
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?