Monie v. Lewis

Filing 27

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

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MOHAMMED MONIE, 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-03996-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 MOHAMMED MONIE, Case No. 17-cv-03996-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 Mohammed Monie G-62196 San Quentin State Prison 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

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?