Summary
This Screening Order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin addresses a pro se prisoner’s complaint alleging a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violation. The court grants the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses the action for failure to state a claim, noting that HIPAA does not provide a private right of action. The order further imposes a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and directs the collection of the remaining filing fee from the plaintiff’s prison trust account.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether HIPAA provides a private right of action.
- Whether the complaint states a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading standard.
- Whether amendment of the complaint would be futile.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying the full filing fee.
Holdings
- HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action, so the plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable.
- The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is dismissed.
- Further amendment would be futile; the court need not allow amendment.
- The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Key quotations
“It has long been held that HIPPA does not furnish a private right of action, so West’s purported claim under HIPPA is not cognizable.”
“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.””
Factual background
Prisoner Darrell Eugene West, Jr., confined at the Chippewa Valley Correctional Treatment Facility, alleged that Jack L. Marcus Company violated his HIPAA rights by publishing the name of his treatment facility on its website, despite his having signed a HIPAA release only for his probation officer and treatment facilitator.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging HIPAA violations; the court screened the complaint and considered the motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.