Rhoads #504915 v. Keller

Filing 10

OPINION ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

Case 1:20-cv-00398-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10 filed 09/10/20 PageID.39 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______

BILLY LEE RHOADS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-398
Honorable Robert J. Jonker

JILL KELLER,
Defendant.

____________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by a county jail inmate under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Pub. L. 104.191 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the
Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these
standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Discussion
I.

Factual allegations
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in the Mecosta County Jail in Big Rapids,

Michigan. Plaintiff sues Jill Keller, a nurse at the jail. Plaintiff claim that during April, he was in

Case 1:20-cv-00398-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10 filed 09/10/20 PageID.40 Page 2 of 3

the medication room. Nurse Keller was discussing someone else’s medications with a deputy.
When Plaintiff walked in, she began discussing Plaintiff’s medications, right in front of the deputy.
Plaintiff claims that violates his HIPAA rights.
Plaintiff seeks “a little justice and maybe some compensation for this matter.” (Am.
Compl., ECF No. 7, PageID.23).
II.

Failure to state a claim
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “‘to give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While
a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include
more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Plaintiff’s complaint falls short. There is no private cause of action for a HIPAA
violation. Burley v. Rider, No. 1:17-cv-88, 2018 WL 6033531, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2018)
report and recommendation adopted 2018 WL 4443071 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2018); see also
Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F. 3d 593, 596 (6th Cir. 2019) (“HIPAA doesn’t authorize a private
cause of action.”). Petitioner, therefore, has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
Court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must next decide
whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00398-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10 filed 09/10/20 PageID.41 Page 3 of 3

§ 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same
reasons the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are properly dismissed, the Court also concludes
that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the Court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good
faith.
This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A judgment consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Dated:

September 10, 2020

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3