Farrell v. Thompson et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 1/31/2018: Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim and will be dismissed with prejudice by separate order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
REGINALD FARRELL

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-692-JHM

CAPT. DAWN THOMPSON et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Reginald Farrell filed the instant action. Because Plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following reasons,
the action will be dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff names as Defendants Louisville Metro Police Captain Dawn Thompson and the
following Louisville Metro Department of Corrections employees: Chief Mark Bolton;
Sgt. Heacock; Assistant Chief Dwayne Clark; and Lt. Chuck Eggers. He states in the portion of
the complaint form asking for the basis of federal jurisdiction: “HIPPA medical violations.”
Plaintiff alleges in the state of the claim portion of the complaint form: “violation of HIPPA
medical rights[;] internal affairs showed up flashing badges at my doctors office asking medical
‘personal question[.]’” As relief, he asks for $5,000,000 “and health insurance for rest of life or
back-pay since 2011 plus reinstated with rare weekends off take home car.”
II. ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 608. Upon review,

this Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or
malicious,” 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally
frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at
327.
When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and
accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424
(6th Cir. 2002). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted “only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Brown v. Bargery, 207
F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings,
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint
must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (HIPAA). Title II of HIPAA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a et seq., was created to protect
against the unauthorized disclosure of health records and information. Gratton v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., No. CV 07-3071, 2008 WL 4934056, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2008). However,
only the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services may file suit to enforce its
provisions. 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(d); Sneed v. Pan Am. Hosp., 370 F. App’x 47, 50 (11th Cir.

2

2010). Private citizens have no standing to sue a covered entity for a violation of HIPAA.
Adams v. Eureka Fire Prot. Dist., 352 F. App’x 137, 139 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that HIPAA
cannot be enforced through either an implied private right of action or through 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983); see also Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 658 (7th Cir. 2011); Siegler v. Ohio
State Univ., No. 2:11-cv-170, 2011 WL 1990570, at *8 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2011). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and will be dismissed with prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, by separate Order, this action will be dismissed.
Date:

January 31, 2018

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.009

3