Mendez v. Quiros et al

Filing 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Amended complaint due by 2/24/2017. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/25/2017. (Ghosh, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KEZLYN MENDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANGEL QUIROS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-2097 (VAB)

JANUARY 25, 2017

INIITAL REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, Kezlyn Mendez, currently incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Center, filed this Complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Mendez’s complaint was
received on December 19, 2016, and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on
December 22, 2016. Defendants are District Administrator Angel Quiros, Warden Carol
Chapdelaine, Mail Room Captain Jane Hall and Mail Room Officer Bill White. Mr. Mendez
alleges that Defendants improperly opened confidential mail outside his presence. Although Mr.
Mendez names Defendants in both individual and official capacities, he seeks only damages.
I.

Standard of Review
Under section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, the Court must review

prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is “frivolous or malicious,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing a pro se
complaint, the Court must assume the truth of the allegations, and interpret them liberally to
“raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d

Cir. 2013); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special
rules of solicitude for pro se litigants).
Although detailed allegations are not required, this Complaint must include sufficient
facts to afford Defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based
and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
II.

Factual Allegations
Between October 18, 2015, and October 20, 2015, a letter addressed to Mr. Mendez from

Pamela Davis-Burgess of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families was allegedly
received at the MacDougall Correctional Institution mailroom. Compl. ECF No. 1, ¶ 1.
Although the letter allegedly was clearly marked “Legal/Confidential,” it was allegedly opened
without Mr. Mendez’s consent and forwarded to a third party. Id. The letter allegedly contained
legal documents as well as documents relating to Mr. Mendez’s medical history. Id. at ¶ 2. Mr.
Mendez allegedly found these documents in his medical chart while he was conducting a chart
review. Id. at ¶ 3. The documents were allegedly signed and dated by several medical staff
members. Id.
Mr. Mendez was not informed that the documents had arrived and been opened outside
his presence. Compl. ¶ 4. When he did not receive the documents, Mr. Mendez re-contacted
Ms. Davis-Burgess who reprocessed his request and re-sent the documents. Id. at ¶ 6.
Mr. Mendez alleges that he submitted an Inmate Request regarding this incident. Compl.
2

¶ 7. Captain Pain and Defendant Captain Hall allegedly responded to his request. Id. He then
filed a grievance which was denied. Id. at 8. Mr. Mendez appealed and Defendant Quiros
denied the grievance appeal. Id.
III.

Discussion
Mr. Mendez names Defendants in their official and individual capacities. However, he

seeks only monetary damages as relief. The Eleventh Amendment divests the district court of
subject matter jurisdiction over claims for money damages against state officials acting in their
official capacities unless the state has waived this immunity or Congress has abrogated it. See
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign
immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979), and Mr. Mendez has provided no
evidence that the state has waived immunity. Thus, any claim for damages against Defendants in
their official capacities are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).
Mr. Mendez characterizes the opening of his mail and viewing of the medical documents
inside of them as a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(“HIPAA”), Pub. L. No. 104-101, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996). HIPAA, however, does not create a
private right of action and cannot support a claim under Section 1983. See Rogers v. Rensslaer
County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:14-CV-01162, 2015 WL 4404788, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. July 17, 2015)
(“It is well established that, because there is no private right of action under HIPAA, a violation
of the Act cannot serve as the basis of a § 1983 claim”) (citing cases); Warren Pearl Constr.
Corp. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 639 F. Supp. 2d 371, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“HIPAA
does not provide for either an express or implied private right of action”). Any HIPAA claim
therefore is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
3

The First Amendment does protect an inmate’s right to send and receive legal mail. See
Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court in Davis noted that “as
few as two incidents of mail tampering could constitute an actionable Constitutional violation if
(1) the incidents suggested an ongoing practice of censorship unjustified by a substantial
government interest, or (2) the tampering unjustifiably chilled the prisoner’s right of access to
the courts or impaired the legal representation received. Id. (citing Washington v. James, 782
F.2d 1134, 1139 (2d Cir. 1986)). As Davis recognized, courts have “generally required specific
allegations of invidious intent or of actual harm where the incidents of tampering are few and
thus the implication of an actionable violation is not obvious on its face.” Davis, 320 F.3d at
351; John v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 183 F. Supp. 2d 619, 629 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[I]n order to
state a constitutional claim for the mistreatment of mail, plaintiff must allege facts which show
that defendants acted with invidious intent. … Additionally, plaintiff must allege that the
opening of mail outside his presence caused him to suffer damage”) (citing Jermosen v.
Coughlin, 877 F. Supp. 864, 870 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).
In other words, a single incident of mail tampering is insufficient to support a
constitutional challenge, unless a prisoner can point to “damages” caused by the incident, or any
other basis to suggest that the alleged incident “chilled” his or her right of access to the courts or
suggested a policy and practice of mail tampering. See Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367,
1371-73 (2d Cir. 1975). Indeed, district courts routinely rely on Morgan to dismiss complaints
asserting claims of unconstitutional opening of legal mail without any showing of damages. See,
e.g., Abreu v. Travers, No. 9:15-CV-0540, 2016 WL 6127510, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016)
(collecting cases).
4

Mr. Mendez alleges that the envelope contained legal documents. He does not allege,
however, that he suffered any injury or prejudice as a result of the opening of the mail outside of
his presence and the withholding of the documents. In fact, he alleges that he was able to obtain
replacement documents. The Court concludes that this one incident is insufficient to support a
claim for interference with legal mail.
Mr. Mendez also alleges that the envelope contained medical information. The Second
Circuit has recognized a constitutional right to “maintain the confidentiality of previously
undisclosed medical information.” Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, prison officials can only disclose medical information to the extent that disclosure
relates to a “legitimate penological interest.” Id. “The gratuitous disclosure of an inmate’s
confidential medical information as humor or gossip … is not reasonably related to a legitimate
penological interest, and it therefore violates the inmate’s constitutional right to privacy.” Id.
The degree of privacy protection afforded to a prisoner’s medical condition varies with
the “sensitive” nature of the condition. Powell, 175 F.3d at 111. To state a claim for violation of
his right to keep confidential medical information, Mr. Medina must show that he suffers from
an unusual or sensitive medical condition that, if disclosed, would expose him to ridicule,
discrimination or even violence, particularly when the word of the condition is likely to spread
through “humor or gossip[.]” Powell, 175 F.3d at 112; see also Rodriguez v. Ames, 287 F. Supp.
2d 213, 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (dismissing case because plaintiff did not have an “unusual
medical problem which, if disclosed unnecessarily to other inmates, would likely expose plaintiff
to discrimination, intolerance, or potential violence”); Webb v. Goldstein, 117 F. Supp. 2d 289,
298-99 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (dismissing a Fourteenth Amendment claim because the prisoner “ha[d]
5

not alleged that his prison records contained the sort of sensitive medical information at issue in
... Powell”).
Mr. Mendez does not indicate the content of the medical documents that were allegedly
included in Ms. Davis-Burgess’ letter. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether unauthorized
disclosure of the information supports a cognizable claim. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed
without prejudice.
Mr. Mendez may amend his Complaint, provided he can allege facts to support a claim
for violation of his right to privacy. If he does so, he must make clear why he alleges that the
particular Defendants he has selected were the people who disclosed his medical information, in
order to put them on notice of their alleged constitutional violations. See, e.g. Parker v. Koch,
No. 81 Civ. 1426 (WCC), 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13374, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 1982)
(“Personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an
award of damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983. … Here there simply is no sufficient factual
allegation of participation by [the individual defendants] in the events which form the basis of
Parker’s claims.”) (citing McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934 (1977), cert. denied, 434
U.S. 1087 (1978)).
ORDERS
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters the following orders:
(1)

The complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and

(2)

Mr. Mendez may file an amended complaint for disclosure of medical information

in violation of his constitutional right to privacy provided he can allege facts supporting such a

6

claim and can identify the person who disclosed the confidential information. Any amended
complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
(3)

Mr. Mendez shall file the amended complaint utilizing the Prisoner e-filing

Program.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 25th day of January 2017.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
Victor A. Bolden
United States District Judge

7