UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

CHASE CALDWELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PORTER STARKE SERVICES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 2:15-CV-182 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

In this action, Plaintiff Chase Caldwell is suing a hospital and four doctors. Though his 

filings in this matter contain few factual allegations, Mr. Caldwell’s allegations in other cases in 

this district suggest that this case relates to his involuntary psychiatric detention. In addition to 

his complaint, Mr. Caldwell has petitioned for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2], and 

has made several other filings. [DE 3–5]. While Mr. Caldwell meets the financial requirements 

to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the Court also has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) to dismiss a complaint if the Court determines that it “fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted.” Under federal pleading standards: 

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted). 

When a complaint is confusing or lacking in necessary detail, the district court is “within its 

rights” to dismiss the complaint with leave to replead. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 

(7th Cir. 2006). 
2 

Mr. Caldwell’s complaint alleges that between February 18 and March 7, 2014, he was a 

patient at Porter Starke Services, and that four doctors violated his Fourteenth Amendment right 

to liberty and violated their duties of reasonable care under state law. He also asserts that the 

doctors violated his “patient practitioner relationship by sharing [his] diagnosis, treatment, and 

prognosis with one another.” However, these allegations fail to state a claim for a number of 

reasons. First, as indicated above, Mr. Caldwell’s complaint does not contain any factual 

allegations as to what each of the defendants did to violate his rights; it is not sufficient to allege 

in a conclusory manner that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. In addition, Mr. 

Caldwell filled out his complaint on a form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a 

cause of action for violations of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. But 

there is no indication that any of the defendants were acting under color of state law, which 

precludes a claim under § 1983. Further, to the extent Mr. Caldwell attempts to raise a federal 

claim for a violation of his patient privacy rights under the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), that claim is “not cognizable because HIPAA does not 

furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011). 

Finally, Mr. Caldwell appears to assert a claim against the doctors for malpractice. To pursue 

that claim, though, Mr. Caldwell will need to follow the procedures set forth under Indiana state 

law. And because that claim is based only on state law and there is no other apparent basis for 

federal jurisdiction, Mr. Caldwell may need to pursue any such claim in state court instead. 

For these reasons, the court: 

(1) STRIKES the complaint [DE 1] and the motion for leave to amend [DE 4]; 

(2) TAKES the in forma pauperis petition [DE 2] under advisement; 
3 

(3) GRANTS the Plaintiff to and including June 29, 2015, to file an amended 

complaint; and 

(4) CAUTIONS the Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will 

be dismissed without further notice. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: June 8, 2015 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court