Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00158/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1320d-2 Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA ALAN BLOW,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv158-LAB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Joshua Alan Blow filed his complaint, along with a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel.

The IFP motion shows Blow lacks the funds to pay the filing fee, and the motion is

GRANTED. The motion for appointment of counsel merely says Blow doesn’t have the

money to pay an attorney, and does not mention of his efforts to find an attorney to represent

him. Blow used a form to prepare this motion. The form includes a section for the applicant

to provide details about efforts he has made to obtain counsel. Blow has crossed this section

out. In the explanation that follows, Blow says he thinks hiring an attorney would cost

$15,000 to $20,000. Apparently this means he has not talked to any legal aid organizations

or tried to find an attorney who would be willing to represent him free of charge or on a

contingency basis. 

- 1 - 17cv158

Case 3:17-cv-00158-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs in civil cases have no right to appointment of counsel. Under exceptional

circumstances, the Court may request counsel to represent indigent civil litigants. See

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Because

Blow has not yet tried to find counsel on his own, he cannot show that exceptional

circumstances require the Court to request counsel to represent him. The motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court is required to screen the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding IFP, and to

dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim or seeks damages against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). 

Blow is suing the San Diego County District Attorney’s office and two District Attorney

Investigators in their individual and official capacities for violations of HIPAA. He says they

improperly disclosed his HIV status to two women in May of 2016. He also says a court date

is coming up soon and he believes this information will be made part of the public record and

disclosed to even more people. The complaint does not explain whether this is a civil or

criminal case. He seeks prospective injunctive relief against Defendants. He also seeks an

injunction forbidding the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego from

disclosing his medical information.

HIPAA forbids covered entities and their business associates from disclosing

protected health information. In general, covered entities are health care clearinghouses,

employer-sponsored health plans, health insurers, and certain health care providers. See

45 C.F.R. § 160.103. Their business associates include certain people or organizations those

doing business with them. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 160.102–160.103. 

HIPAA provides for no private right of action. Webb v. Smart Document Solutions,

LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, Blow has not alleged that any of the

three Defendants are either covered entities or business associates of a covered entity, and

it does not seem likely he could do so. And even if HIPAA applied, it includes an exception

for court proceedings. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). Finally, there are very limited circumstances

- 2 - 17cv158

Case 3:17-cv-00158-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under which the Court has authority to enjoin state court actions, see generally Mitchum v.

Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972), and none are presented here. 

Blow mentions defamation, which is a state cause of action. He does not allege the

information Defendants disclosed was untrue, however. But even if there were some statelaw claim, the Court could not exercise diversity jurisdiction over it, because the parties are

not diverse. The Court might be able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim,

but only if Blow were bringing a federal claim. Because he is not, the Court cannot exercise

jurisdiction over any state-law claims he might have.

Because it is not completely clear Blow cannot plead a federal claim of some kind, this

action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Blow thinks he can successfully amend his

complaint, he may do so no later than February 28, 2017. Any amended complaint he files

must correct the defects this order has identified, and must actually be filed and entered in

the docket by that date. If Blow does not successfully amend within the time permitted,

this action will be dismissed without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2017 ___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 3 - 17cv158

Case 3:17-cv-00158-LAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3