Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Health Care Services
Defendant
Jonathan Elliott Higgins
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JONATHAN ELLIOTT HIGGINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CCHCS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB- PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed 

September 1, 2016. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7
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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Corcoran State Prison, brings this civil rights action against 

Defendants California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), and John and Jane Doe

employees of CCHCS. 

Plaintiff‟s sole claim in this action is that California Correctional Health Care Services 

impermissibly violated the privacy of Plaintiff and other inmates by disclosing their medical 

information in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 

(HIPAA). Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant CCHCS and their employees breached 

their duty of care in to protect the confidential medical and mental health information of Plaintiff 

and other inmates. 

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 7
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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. HIPAA

Federal courts have found that HIPAA created no private right of action. U.S. v. Streich, 

560 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2009)(“HIPAA does not provide any private right of action.”); Webb v. 

Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007)(“HIPAA itself provides 

no right of action.”); University of Colorado Hosp. v. Denver Publ‟g Co., 350 F.Supp.2d 1142, 

1145 (D. Colo. 2004)(holding that HIPAA statutory text and structure display no intent to create 

a private right of action, and noting that Act expressly provides a method for enforcing 

prohibitions, i.e., punitive fines and/or imprisonment, which indicates Congress did not intend to 

allow an additional private remedy). Put another way, only the government can bring a claim 

against a medical provider for violation of HIPAA. This claim should therefore be dismissed.

B. Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names as individual 

Defendants John and Jane Doe, but fails to charge them with any specific conduct other than a

generalized allegation that they violated his privacy. Section 1983 provides a cause of action for 

the violation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of 

state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009); Long v. County of Los 

Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of 

State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012)(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989))(internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts 

demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each defendant‟s actions or 

omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 

726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Plaintiff has failed to do so here. Defendants John and Jane Doe should therefore be dismissed.

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 7
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

4

C. Doe Defendants

Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot order service upon unidentified Defendants. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include no provision “permitting the use of fictitious 

defendants.” McMillan v. Department of Interior, 907 F.Supp. 32, 328 (D. Nev. 1995), aff‟d, 87 

F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1132 (1997). “As a general rule, the use of 

„John Doe‟ to identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th 

Cir. 1980). Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against the Doe Defendants, 

they should therefore be dismissed. In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff must identify the 

Doe Defendants. 

D. Eleventh Amendment

“The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an 

unconsenting state. Though it language might suggest otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment has 

long been construed to extend to suits brought against a state by both its own citizens, as well as 

by citizens of other states.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 

(9th Cir. 1991); see also Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Puerto Rico 

Aqueduct Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State 

Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the 

state itself is named as a defendant. Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)(concluding that Nevada Department of 

Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles 

Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendant California 

Correctional Health Care Services, an agency of the State of California, is therefore immune 

from suit.

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

E. Inmate Plaintiffs

Plaintiff appears to bring this action on behalf of other inmate Plaintiffs. Plaintiff is 

advised that parties representing themselves “must appear personally or by courtesy appearance 

by an attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court and may not delegate that duty to any other 

individual, including husband or wife, or any other party on the same side appearing without an 

attorney.” Local Rule 183(a). Any individuals who are not an attorney and not admitted to this 

Court are precluded from appearing on behalf of anyone but them self. Johns v. Cnty. of San 

Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 

696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se on his own behalf, may bring this action 

on his own behalf, but may not bring suit on behalf of any other individuals. 

F. Medical Care

The sole individual Defendants in this action are employed by CCHCS. Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim for relief on his claim of violation of privacy rights. To the extent that 

Plaintiff claims that he is being denied adequate medical care, he is advised of the following. 

While the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical care, 

the Eighth Amendment is only violated when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), 

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 

(9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to 

treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant‟s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference 

is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical 

need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 

at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than 

ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d t 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); 

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. In order to state a claim against the individual Defendants, Plaintiff 

must allege facts indicating that each Defendant knew of and disregarded a serious medical 

condition of Plaintiff‟s, resulting in injury to Plaintiff.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed September 1, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

A first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01297-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 7