Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06410/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 

CARE SERVICES,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-6410-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, 

filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

His complaint is now before the Court for initial screening 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:16-cv-06410-TEH Document 4 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II

Plaintiff states that he was notified of a potential breach 

regarding his personal health information. A laptop computer 

that may have included Plaintiff’s health information was stolen 

out of a car of a prison health care worker. The computer was 

password protected but was not encrypted. Plaintiff seeks money 

damages.

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim because he 

has failed to identify a right secured by the Constitution or 

laws of the United States that was violated. To the extent 

Plaintiff is asserting a violation of his health privacy; he is 

not entitled to relief. The Health Insurance Protability and 

Accountability Act of `1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 

1936 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.) 

“provides for no private right of action.” Webb v. Smart 

Document Solutions, 499 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007); see, 

e.g., Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Webb and dismissing prisoner's claim under HIPAA for 

disclosure of his medical records). Plaintiff assertion that 

potential release of his medical information due to theft

violated his constitutionally-protected privacy rights fails to 

state a claim because “prisoners do not have a constitutionally 

Case 3:16-cv-06410-TEH Document 4 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

protected expectation of privacy in prison treatment records when 

the state has a legitimate penological interest in access to 

them.” Seaton, 610 F.3d at 534. The complaint is dismissed but 

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed against in this action. The pleading must be simple, 

concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how each 

and every Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s 

federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The 

pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in 

this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on 

the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must file all of 

his claims in one complaint and not present them piecemeal to the 

Court in various letters and other documents. Failure to file a 

proper First Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this 

order will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

Case 3:16-cv-06410-TEH Document 4 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled.").

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/7/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Jackson6410.dwlta.docx

Case 3:16-cv-06410-TEH Document 4 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 4