Moore v. Lewis et al

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge jam on 2/8/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THOMAS EUGENE MOORE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
J. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03927-JD

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

14

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended

15

complaint.
DISCUSSION

16
17

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

19

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

21

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

23

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

24

Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

27

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

28

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

1

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

2

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

4

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

5

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

6

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

7

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

8

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

9

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

LEGAL CLAIMS

13

Plaintiff states that he was notified of a potential breach regarding his personal health

14

information. A laptop computer that may have included plaintiff’s health information was stolen

15

out of a car of a prison health care worker. The computer was password protected but was not

16

encrypted. Plaintiff seeks money damages.

17

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim because he has not identified a right secured

18

by the Constitution or laws of the United States that was violated. To demonstrate a violation of

19

the Eighth Amendment with respect to medical care, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants

20

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

21

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds,

22

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

23

To the extent plaintiff is asserting a violation of his health privacy; he is not entitled to

24

relief. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of `1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub. L. 104-

25

191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.) “provides for no

26

private right of action.” Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, 499 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007);

27

see, e.g., Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Webb and dismissing

28

prisoner’s claim under HIPAA for disclosure of his medical records). Plaintiff assertion that
2

1

potential release of his medical information due to theft violated his constitutionally-protected

2

privacy rights fails to state a claim because “prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected

3

expectation of privacy in prison treatment records when the state has a legitimate penological

4

interest in access to them.” Seaton, 610 F.3d at 534.

5

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend but plaintiff has failed to set forth a

6

federal claim in the amended complaint. Because allowing further amendment would be futile this

7

case is dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION

8
1.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

10

2.

The Clerk shall close this case.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: February 8, 2018

13
14
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

THOMAS EUGENE MOORE,

Case No. 17-cv-03927-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

J. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on February 8, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Thomas Eugene Moore ID: D-62389
San Quentin State Prison
General Delivery
San Quentin, CA 94974

19
20
21

Dated: February 8, 2018

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4