Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHEAL STEVEN KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. DEATHRIAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR NON-AUTHORIZATION OR

RELEASE OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL 

RECORDS

(ECF No. 60)

Plaintiff Michael Steven King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is set for a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s notice and motion for non-authorization or 

release of Plaintiff’s medical records, filed February 27, 2017 (ECF No. 60). Plaintiff states that 

he received an expert disclosure from Defendants that shows their medical expert, Dr. Feinberg, 

was using Plaintiff’s medical records when making statements prior to trial. Plaintiff contends 

that there was no authorization from him to disclose his records, nor was he asked, in violation of

the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d, 

et seq. (“HIPAA”).

///

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 69 Filed 03/23/17 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

2

Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s motion on March 14, 2017. (ECF No. 63.) They 

assert that Dr. Feinberg is an un-retained expert who is employed by the California Correctional 

Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) to provide California inmates with medical care. Thus, they 

argue that Plaintiff’s records have not been disclosed to a third party, and they are willing to 

stipulate to a protective order for any records to be used at trial. Further, they argue that Plaintiff 

has no expectation of privacy regarding his medical records, since he put his medical condition at 

issue in this case. Finally, they assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief here since HIPAA 

does not create a private right of action, nor does it provide for the exclusion of evidence as a 

remedy for its violation.

Regarding Plaintiff's HIPAA argument, Plaintiff is advised that federal courts have found 

that HIPAA created no private right of action, nor does it provide any means to suppress 

evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2009) (“HIPAA does not 

provide any private right of action, much less a suppression remedy.”). In other words, only the 

government can bring a claim against a medical provider for violation of HIPAA. Thus, to the 

extent Plaintiff seeks any damages in this action under HIPAA regarding the disclosure of his 

medical records, or to the extent he seeks to exclude any evidence at trial based on the disclosure 

of those records, the Court shall not grant such relief. 

Plaintiff also argues that there is a conflict of interest in the Attorney General 

representing Defendants as their counsel in this action, because the Attorney General should 

have brought legal action against Defendants based on their alleged conduct here. As a result, 

Plaintiff seeks an order that Defendants be required to obtain new counsel. 

The State has a mandatory duty to represent itself and any state officer acting in an 

official capacity. See Cal. Gov't Code § 12512 (“The Attorney General shall ... defend all causes 

to which the State, or any State officer is a party in his official capacity ...”). In representing the 

State, the Attorney General will also normally represent the public interest. See, e.g., D’Amico v. 

Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 14-15 (1974). In an exceptional case, the Attorney 

General may recognize a conflict of interest between the duty to represent the public interest and 

the duty to represent a state agency. “However, unless the Attorney General asserts the existence 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 69 Filed 03/23/17 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

3

of such a conflict, it must be concluded that the actions and determinations of the Attorney 

General in such a lawsuit are made both a representative of the public interest and as counsel for 

the state agency or officer.” Id. at 15.

In the instant case, the Attorney General has not asserted any conflict of interest. 

Furthermore, the Court finds that this case is not exceptional. It is exceedingly common for state 

prisoners to file civil rights actions against the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation and its employees based on constitutional grounds. These cases do not present the 

type of “public interest” case which would normally invoke a potential conflict of interest. 

Finally, actions taken by the Attorney General on behalf of state employees do not present a 

conflict of interest for an opposing party. Therefore, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s 

argument that the representation of Defendants by the Attorney General presents a conflict of 

interest in this case.

For these reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief due to the 

non-authorization or release of Plaintiff’s medical records, filed February 27, 2017 (ECF No. 

60), is DENIED, in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 69 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 3