Anderson v. Kernan et al
Filing
16
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 29, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
VERNON ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No. 17-cv-01371-JST (PR)
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
STATE COURT
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
This pro se prisoner’s civil action was originally filed in Monterey County Superior Court.
15
Plaintiff complains of a potential breach regarding his personal health information. The action
16
concerns a February 25, 2016 theft of a California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”)
17
laptop in the possession of a CCHCS employee and a notification to California Department of
18
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) inmates of the theft in May 2016 (collectively, the
19
“Laptop Theft”). Plaintiff appears to allege that CCHCS and its agents, officials, and employees
20
violated California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 56 et. seq. in
21
conjunction with the Laptop Theft. Plaintiff believes the stolen laptop may have contained his
22
confidential medical, mental health, and custodial information. Plaintiff named as defendants J.
23
Clark Kelso, Receiver for the California prison medical healthcare system, and Deputy Receiver
24
Richard Kirkland, along with various CDCR officials and staff.
25
On March 14, 2017, defendant J. Clark Kelso removed the complaint from the Monterey
26
County Superior Court to this court. ECF No. 1. Defendant Kelso, who was appointed by the
27
United States District Court for the Northern District of California as the Receiver for the
28
California prison medical healthcare system, removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)
1
and (3). Id.; Plata v. Schwarzenegger (Plata), 3:01-cv-01351 TEH, ECF No. 1063 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
2
23, 2008). As Receiver, Kelso is an officer and agent of the Plata court, giving this court original
3
jurisdiction over claims against him in his capacity as Receiver. Med. Dev. Intern. v. California
4
Dept. of Corrections and Rehab., 585 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 14 at 32-55, which is now
5
6
before the Court for initial review of the pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Defendants
7
Kelso and Kirkland have filed a statement of non-opposition to the FAC.
The FAC no longer names defendant Kelso, the party who initially removed the action to
8
9
this court.1 The basis for removal was Kelso’s role as Receiver in the Plata action. Now that
Kelso is no longer a party to the action, there appears to be no federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
appears to only claim violation of California statues, and plaintiff makes clear that he filed his
12
FAC in Monterey County Superior Court. See ECF No. 14. To the extent plaintiff is asserting a
13
violation of his health privacy; he is not entitled to federal relief. The Health Insurance Portability
14
and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified as
15
amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.) “provides for no private right of action.” Webb v.
16
Smart Document Solutions, 499 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007); see, e.g., Seaton v. Mayberg,
17
610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Webb and dismissing prisoner’s claim under HIPAA for
18
disclosure of his medical records).
19
The case therefore will be remanded to state court so that plaintiff may litigate in his
20
chosen forum. See Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986) (“it is within the district
21
court’s discretion, once the basis for removal jurisdiction is dropped, whether to hear the rest of
22
the action or remand it to the state court from which it was removed”); Plute v. Roadway Package
23
System, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (court may remand sua sponte or on
24
motion of a party). The action is REMANDED to the Monterey County Superior Court for such
25
other and further proceedings as that court deems proper. The Clerk shall close the file and send
26
the necessary materials to the Monterey County Superior Court for the remand.
27
28
1
Richard Kirkland, Chief Deputy Receiver, has also been removed as a defendant from the FAC.
2
1
2
3
4
In light of the remand to state court, all pending motions are dismissed as moot. All
further motions must be filed in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2017
5
6
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?