Mahmoud Elmilligy v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al.

Civil Action No. 25-13497 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2025) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · November 24, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-13497

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey grants Mahmoud Elmilligy’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses his complaint without prejudice. The court concludes that the § 1983 claims lack allegations of state action, HIPAA provides no private right of action, and the remaining negligence claim does not establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. A Section 1983 claim does not extend to private conduct unless the plaintiff alleges facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law or that the state was sufficiently involved to constitute state action. Because Plaintiff alleged no wrongdoing by a state actor and no facts establishing state action, the Section 1983 claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
  2. HIPAA does not provide a private right of action to remedy alleged HIPAA violations. Plaintiff's HIPAA claim was therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim.
  3. The negligence claim did not arise under the Constitution or federal law and therefore did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
  4. Diversity jurisdiction was not established because the complaint did not allege or request any amount of damages, including an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
  5. A court must dismiss an action proceeding in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. Applying that standard, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private defendants absent allegations of state action.
  2. Whether HIPAA provides a private right of action for alleged HIPAA violations.
  3. Whether the court had federal-question or diversity subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining negligence claim.
  4. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (9)

  • Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 371, 374 (3d Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Nat'l Collegiate Ath. Ass'n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191-192 (1988)(followed)
  • In re U.S. Vision Data Breach Litig., No. 22-06558, 2025 WL 615366, at *9 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2025)(followed)
  • Polanco v. Omnicell, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 2d 451, 468-69 (D.N.J. 2013)(followed)
  • Fernandes v. DAR Dev. Corp., Inc., 222 N.J. 390, 403-404 (2015)(followed)
  • Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2012)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…